Parallel synthesis and nucleic acid binding properties of C(6')-[alpha]-functionalized bicyclo-DNA

Two novel bicyclo-T nucleosides carrying a hydroxyl or a carboxymethyl substituent in C(6')-[alpha]-position were prepared and incorporated into oligodeoxynucleotides. During oligonucleotide deprotection the carboxymethyl substituent was converted into different amide substituents in a parallel way. Tm-measurements showed no dramatic differences in both, thermal affinity and mismatch discrimination, compared to unmodified oligonucleotides. The post-synthetic modification of the carboxymethyl substituent allows in principle for a parallel preparation of a library of oligonucleotides carrying diverse substituents at C(6'). In addition, functional groups can be placed into unique positions in a DNA double helix.

Evidence for C−H⋅⋅⋅O Hydrogen Bond Assisted Recognition of a Pyrimidine Base in the Parallel DNA Triple-Helical Motif

The efficient recognition of the pyrimidine base uracil by hypoxanthine or thymine in the parallel DNA triplex motif is based on the interplay of a conventional N−H⋅⋅⋅O and an unconventional C−H⋅⋅⋅O hydrogen bond.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Parallel determination of NeuroD1, chromogranin-A, KI67 and androgen receptor expression in surgically treated prostate cancers

Neuroendocrine differentiation is a hallmark of prostate cancer. The aim of our study was the detection of the parallel expression of neuroendocrine related markers using a prostate tissue microarray (TMA).

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Parallel evolution of facial stripe patterns in the Neolamprologus brichardilpulcher species complex endemic to Lake Tanganyika

Colour pattern diversity can be due to random processes or to natural or sexual selection. Consequently, similarities in colour patterns are not always correlated with common ancestry, but may result from convergent evolution under shared selection pressures or drift. Neolamprologus brichardi and Neolamprologus pulcher have been described as two distinct species based on differences in the arrangement of two dark bars on the operculum. Our study uses DNA sequences of the mitochondrial control region to show that relatedness of haplotypes disagrees with species assignment based on head colour pattern. This suggests repeated parallel evolution of particular stripe patterns. The complete lack of shared haplotypes between populations of the same or different phenotypes reflects strong philopatric behaviour, possibly induced by the cooperative breeding mode in which offspring remain in their natal territory and serve as helpers until they disperse to nearby territories or take over a breeding position. Concordant phylogeographic patterns between N. brichardi/N. pulcher populations and other rock-dwelling cichlids suggest that the same colonization routes have been taken by sympatric species and that these routes were affected by lake level fluctuations in the past. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Connectionism as metaphor: Towards an integrated, unified conception of self-system and individual difference

Comments on an article by Kashima et al. (see record 2007-10111-001). In their target article Kashima and colleagues try to show how a connectionist model conceptualization of the self is best suited to capture the self's temporal and socio-culturally contextualized nature. They propose a new model and to support this model, the authors conduct computer simulations of psychological phenomena whose importance for the self has long been clear, even if not formally modeled, such as imitation, and learning of sequence and narrative. As explicated when we advocated connectionist models as a metaphor for self in Mischel and Morf (2003), we fully endorse the utility of such a metaphor, as these models have some of the processing characteristics necessary for capturing key aspects and functions of a dynamic cognitive-affective self-system. As elaborated in that chapter, we see as their principal strength that connectionist models can take account of multiple simultaneous processes without invoking a single central control. All outputs reflect a distributed pattern of activation across a large number of simple processing units, the nature of which depends on (and changes with) the connection weights between the links and the satisfaction of mutual constraints across these links (Rummelhart & McClelland, 1986). This allows a simple account for why certain input features will at times predominate, while others take over on other occasions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND: Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION: Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations.

Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, e-selectin and C-reactive protein levels in response to 4-week very-high-fructose or -glucose diets.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES High intake of added sweeteners is considered to have a causal role in the pathogenesis of cardiometabolic disorders. Especially, high-fructose intake is regarded as potentially harmful to cardiometabolic health. It may cause not only weight gain but also low-grade inflammation, which represents an independent risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In particular, fructose has been suggested to induce plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) expression in the liver and to increase circulating inflammatory cytokines. We therefore aimed to investigate, whether high-fructose diet has an impact on PAI-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), e-selectin and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations in healthy humans. SUBJECTS/METHODS We studied 20 participants (12 males and 8 females) of the TUebingen FRuctose Or Glucose study. This is an exploratory, parallel, prospective, randomized, single-blinded, outpatient, hypercaloric, intervention study. The participants had a mean age of 30.9 ± 2.1 years and a mean body mass index of 26.0 ± 0.5 kg/m(2) and they received 150 g of either fructose or glucose per day for 4 weeks.Results:There were neither significant changes of PAI-1, MCP-1, e-selectin and CRP after fructose (n=10) and glucose (n=10) intervention nor treatment effects (all P>0.2). Moreover, we did not observe longitudinal associations of the inflammatory parameters with triglycerides, liver fat, visceral fat and body weight in the fructose group. CONCLUSIONS Temporary high-fructose intake does not seem to cause inflammation in apparently healthy people in this secondary analysis of a small feeding trial.