Motivational interviewing and feedback for college drinkers: Handling missing values with complete case analysis and multiple imputation

Objective: In this secondary data analysis, three statistical methodologies were implemented to handle cases with missing data in a motivational interviewing and feedback study. The aim was to evaluate the impact that these methodologies have on the data analysis. ^ Methods: We first evaluated whether the assumption of missing completely at random held for this study. We then proceeded to conduct a secondary data analysis using a mixed linear model to handle missing data with three methodologies (a) complete case analysis, (b) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, and the interaction of time and treatment, and (c) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, the interaction of time and treatment, and additional covariates (e.g., age, gender, smoke, years in school, marital status, housing, race/ethnicity, and if participants play on athletic team). Several comparisons were conducted including the following ones: 1) the motivation interviewing with feedback group (MIF) vs. the assessment only group (AO), the motivation interviewing group (MIO) vs. AO, and the intervention of the feedback only group (FBO) vs. AO, 2) MIF vs. FBO, and 3) MIF vs. MIO.^ Results: We first evaluated the patterns of missingness in this study, which indicated that about 13% of participants showed monotone missing patterns, and about 3.5% showed non-monotone missing patterns. Then we evaluated the assumption of missing completely at random by Little's missing completely at random (MCAR) test, in which the Chi-Square test statistic was 167.8 with 125 degrees of freedom, and its associated p-value was p=0.006, which indicated that the data could not be assumed to be missing completely at random. After that, we compared if the three different strategies reached the same results. For the comparison between MIF and AO as well as the comparison between MIF and FBO, only the multiple imputation with additional covariates by uncongenial and congenial models reached different results. For the comparison between MIF and MIO, all the methodologies for handling missing values obtained different results. ^ Discussions: The study indicated that, first, missingness was crucial in this study. Second, to understand the assumptions of the model was important since we could not identify if the data were missing at random or missing not at random. Therefore, future researches should focus on exploring more sensitivity analyses under missing not at random assumption.^

Enterococcus faecalis PcfC, a spatially localized substrate receptor for type IV secretion of the pCF10 transfer intermediate.

Upon sensing of peptide pheromone, Enterococcus faecalis efficiently transfers plasmid pCF10 through a type IV secretion (T4S) system to recipient cells. The PcfF accessory factor and PcfG relaxase initiate transfer by catalyzing strand-specific nicking at the pCF10 origin of transfer sequence (oriT). Here, we present evidence that PcfF and PcfG spatially coordinate docking of the pCF10 transfer intermediate with PcfC, a membrane-bound putative ATPase related to the coupling proteins of gram-negative T4S machines. PcfC and PcfG fractionated with the membrane and PcfF with the cytoplasm, yet all three proteins formed several punctate foci at the peripheries of pheromone-induced cells as monitored by immunofluorescence microscopy. A PcfC Walker A nucleoside triphosphate (NTP) binding site mutant (K156T) fractionated with the E. faecalis membrane and also formed foci, whereas PcfC deleted of its N-terminal putative transmembrane domain (PcfCDelta N103) distributed uniformly throughout the cytoplasm. Native PcfC and mutant proteins PcfCK156T and PcfCDelta N103 bound pCF10 but not pcfG or Delta oriT mutant plasmids as shown by transfer DNA immunoprecipitation, indicating that PcfC binds only the processed form of pCF10 in vivo. Finally, purified PcfCDelta N103 bound DNA substrates and interacted with purified PcfF and PcfG in vitro. Our findings support a model in which (i) PcfF recruits PcfG to oriT to catalyze T-strand nicking, (ii) PcfF and PcfG spatially position the relaxosome at the cell membrane to stimulate substrate docking with PcfC, and (iii) PcfC initiates substrate transfer through the pCF10 T4S channel by an NTP-dependent mechanism.