Prognostic Value Of Dna And Mrna E6/e7 Of Human Papillomavirus In The Evolution Of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2.

This study aimed at evaluating whether human papillomavirus (HPV) groups and E6/E7 mRNA of HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 are prognostic of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 outcome in women with a cervical smear showing a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL). This cohort study included women with biopsy-confirmed CIN 2 who were followed up for 12 months, with cervical smear and colposcopy performed every three months. Women with a negative or low-risk HPV status showed 100% CIN 2 regression. The CIN 2 regression rates at the 12-month follow-up were 69.4% for women with alpha-9 HPV versus 91.7% for other HPV species or HPV-negative status (P < 0.05). For women with HPV 16, the CIN 2 regression rate at the 12-month follow-up was 61.4% versus 89.5% for other HPV types or HPV-negative status (P < 0.05). The CIN 2 regression rate was 68.3% for women who tested positive for HPV E6/E7 mRNA versus 82.0% for the negative results, but this difference was not statistically significant. The expectant management for women with biopsy-confirmed CIN 2 and previous cytological tests showing LSIL exhibited a very high rate of spontaneous regression. HPV 16 is associated with a higher CIN 2 progression rate than other HPV infections. HPV E6/E7 mRNA is not a prognostic marker of the CIN 2 clinical outcome, although this analysis cannot be considered conclusive. Given the small sample size, this study could be considered a pilot for future larger studies on the role of predictive markers of CIN 2 evolution.

Short-term Physiological Changes In Roots And Leaves Of Sugarcane Varieties Exposed To H2o2 In Root Medium.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differential sensitivity of sugarcane genotypes to H2O2 in root medium. As a hypothesis, the drought tolerant genotype would be able to minimize the oxidative damage and maintain the water transport from roots to shoots, reducing the negative effects on photosynthesis. The sugarcane genotypes IACSP94-2094 (drought tolerant) and IACSP94-2101 (drought sensitive) were grown in a growth chamber and exposed to three levels of H2O2 in nutrient solution: control; 3mmolL(-1) and 80mmolL(-1). Leaf gas exchange, photochemical activity, root hydraulic conductance (Lr) and antioxidant metabolism in both roots and leaves were evaluated after 15min of treatment with H2O2. Although, root hydraulic conductance, stomatal aperture, apparent electron transport rate and instantaneous carboxylation efficiency have been reduced by H2O2 in both genotypes, IACSP94-2094 presented higher values of those variables as compared to IACSP94-2101. There was a significant genotypic variation in relation to the physiological responses of sugarcane to increasing H2O2 in root tissues, being root changes associated with modifications in plant shoots. IACSP94-2094 presented a root antioxidant system more effective against H2O2 in root medium, regardless H2O2 concentration. Under low H2O2 concentration, water transport and leaf gas exchange of IACSP94-2094 were less affected as compared to IACSP94-2101. Under high H2O2 concentration, the lower sensitivity of IACSP94-2094 was associated with increases in superoxide dismutase activity in roots and leaves and increases in catalase activity in roots. In conclusion, we propose a general model of sugarcane reaction to H2O2, linking root and shoot physiological responses.

P16(ink) (4a) Expression As A Potential Marker Of Low-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Progression.

To evaluate p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in CIN1 lesions looking for differences between cases that progress to CIN2/3 maintain CIN1 diagnosis, or spontaneously regress. Seventy-four CIN1 biopsies were studied. In the follow-up, a second biopsy was performed and 28.7% showed no lesion (regression), 37.9% maintained CIN1, and 33.4% progressed to CIN2/3. Immunostaining for p16(INK) (4a) was performed in the first biopsy and it was considered positive when there was strong and diffuse staining of the basal and parabasal layers. Pearson's chi-square was used to compare the groups (p ≤ 0.05). The age of the patients was similar. There was no significant difference in p16(INK) (4a) immunoexpression in the groups, however, statistical analyses showed a significant association when only the progression and regression groups were compared (p = 0.042). Considering p16(INK) (4a) positivity and the progression to CIN2/3, the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values in our cohort were 45%, 75%, 47%, and 94%, respectively. We emphasize that CIN1 with p16(INK) (4a) staining was associated with lesion progression, but the sensitivity was not high. However, the negative predictive value was more reliable (94%) and p16(INK) (4a) may represent a useful biomarker that can identify CIN1 lesions that need particular attention, complementing morphology.