The origin, molecular regulation and therapeutic potential of myogenic stem cell populations

Satellite cells, originating in the embryonic dermamyotome, reside beneath the myofibre of mature adult skeletal muscle and constitute the tissue-specific stem cell population. Recent advances following the identification of markers for these cells (including Pax7, Myf5, c-Met and CD34) (CD, cluster of differentiation; c-Met, mesenchymal epithelial transition factor) have led to a greater understanding of the role played by satellite cells in the regeneration of new skeletal muscle during growth and following injury. In response to muscle damage, satellite cells harbour the ability both to form myogenic precursors and to self-renew to repopulate the stem cell niche following myofibre damage. More recently, other stem cell populations including bone marrow stem cells, skeletal muscle side population cells and mesoangioblasts have also been shown to have myogenic potential in culture, and to be able to form skeletal muscle myofibres in vivo and engraft into the satellite cell niche. These cell types, along with satellite cells, have shown potential when used as a therapy for skeletal muscle wasting disorders where the intrinsic stem cell population is genetically unable to repair non-functioning muscle tissue. Accurate understanding of the mechanisms controlling satellite cell lineage progression and self-renewal as well as the recruitment of other stem cell types towards the myogenic lineage is crucial if we are to exploit the power of these cells in combating myopathic conditions. Here we highlight the origin, molecular regulation and therapeutic potential of all the major cell types capable of undergoing myogenic differentiation and discuss their potential therapeutic application.

Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients

To make informed decisions about taking medicinal drugs, people need accurate information about side-effects. A European Union guideline now recommends use of qualitative descriptions for five bands of risk, ranging from very rare (affecting < 0·01% of the population), to very common (>10%). We did four studies of more than 750 people, whom we asked to estimate the probability of having a side-effect on the basis of qualitative and quantitative descriptions. Our results showed that qualitative descriptions led to gross overestimation of risk. Until further work is done on how patients taking the drugs interpret these terms, the terms should not be used in drug information leaflets.

Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology

Two experiments compared people's interpretation of verbal and numerical descriptions of the risk of medication side effects occurring. The verbal descriptors were selected from those recommended for use by the European Union (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). Both experiments used a controlled empirical methodology, in which nearly 500 members of the general population were presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario about visiting the doctor and being prescribed medication, together with information about the medicine's side effects and their probability of occurrence. Experiment 1 found that, in all three age groups tested (18 - 40, 41 - 60 and over 60), participants given a verbal descriptor (very common) estimated side effect risk to be considerably higher than those given a comparable numerical description. Furthermore, the differences in interpretation were reflected in their judgements of side effect severity, risk to health, and intention to comply. Experiment 2 confirmed these findings using two different verbal descriptors (common and rare) and in scenarios which described either relatively severe or relatively mild side effects. Strikingly, only 7 out of 180 participants in this study gave a probability estimate which fell within the EU assigned numerical range. Thus, large scale use of the descriptors could have serious negative consequences for individual and public health. We therefore recommend that the EU and National authorities suspend their recommendations regarding these descriptors until a more substantial evidence base is available to support their appropriate use.

Interpreting information about medication side effects: differences in risk perception and intention to comply when medicines are prescribed for adults or young children

This study investigates whether, and how, people's perception of risk and intended health behaviours are affected by whether a medicine is prescribed for themselves or for a young child. The question is relevant to the issue of whether it is beneficial to produce medicines information that is tailored to particular subgroups of the population, such as parents of young children. In the experiment, participants read scenarios which referred either to themselves or their (imagined) 1-year-old child, and were required to make a number of risk judgements. The results showed that both parents and non-parents were less satisfied, perceived side effects to be more severe and more likely to occur, risk to health to be higher, and said that they would be less likely to take (or give) the medicine when the recipient was the child. On the basis of the findings, it is suggested that it may well be beneficial to tailor materials to broader classes of patient type.