The chains of the heterodimeric amphibian skin antimicrobial peptide, distinctin, are encoded by separate messenger RNAs

Using a primer to a conserved nucleotide sequence of previously-cloned skin peptides of Phyllomedusa species, two distinct cDNAs were “shotgun” cloned from a skin secretion-derived cDNA library of the frog, Phyllomedusa burmeisteri. The two ORFs separately encode chains A and B of an analog of the previously-reported heterodimeric peptide, distinctin. LC-MS/MS analysis of native versus dithiotreitol reduced crude venom, confirmed the predicted primary sequences as well as the cystine link between the two monomers. Distinctin predominantly exists in the venom as a heterodimer (A-B), neither of the constituent peptides were detected as monomer, whereas of the two possible homodimers (A-A or B-B), only B-B was detected in comparatively low quantity. In vitro dimerization of synthetic replicates of the monomers demonstrated that besides heterodimer, both homodimers are also formed in considerable amounts. Distinctin is the first example of an amphibian skin dimeric peptide that is formed by covalent linkage of two chains that are the products of different mRNAs. How this phenomenon occurs in vivo, to exclude significant homodimer formation, is unclear at present but a “favored steric state” type of interaction between chains is most likely.

A prospective randomised trial of a "test and treat" policy versus endoscopy based management in young Helicobacter pylori positive patients with ulcer-like dyspepsia, referred to a hospital clinic

Management of dyspepsia remains a controversial area. Although the European Helicobacter pylori study group has advised empirical eradication therapy without oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) in young H pylori positive dyspeptic patients who do not exhibit alarm symptoms, this strategy has not been subjected to clinical trial.

Randomised controlled trial of ranitidine versus omeprazole in combination with antibiotics for eradication of Helicobacter pylori

This study compared high dose ranitidine versus low dose omeprazole with antibiotics for the eradication of H pylori. 80 patients (mean age 48 years, range 18-75) who had H pylori infection were randomised in an investigator-blind manner to either a two-week regime of omeprazole 20 mg daily, amoxycillin 500 mg tid and metronidazole 400 mg tid (OAM), or ranitidine 600 mg bd, amoxycillin 500 mg tid and metronidazole 400 mg tid (RAM), or omeprazole 20 mg daily and clarithromycin 500 mg tid (OC), or omeprazole 20 mg daily and placebo (OP). H pylori was eradicated in 6 of 19 patients in the OAM group (32%); 8 of 18 in the RAM group (44%), 4 of 15 in the OC group (27%); none of 18 in the OP group (0%). [<P0.005 for OAM, RAM, OC vs OP; P = N.S. between OAM, RAM, OC]. Overall metronidazole resistance was unexpectedly high at 58%. Eradication rates in metronidazole sensitive patients were 71% (5/7) and 100% (3/3) for OAM and RAM respectively. In conclusion, H pylori eradication rates using high dose ranitidine plus amoxycillin and metronidazole may be similar to that of low dose omeprazole in combination with the same antibiotics for omeprazole with clarithromycin. Overall eradication rates were low due to a high incidence of metronidazole resistance but were higher in metronidazole-sensitive patients. Even high dose ranitidine with two antibiotics achieves a relatively low eradication rate. These metronidazole-based regimens cannot be recommended in areas with a high incidence of metronidazole resistance.

Moral Compromise

A moral compromise is a compromise on moral matters; it is agreement in the face of moral disagreement but where there is agreement on the importance of consensus – namely that it secures a morally desirable outcome. It is distinguishable from other forms of agreement, and an important distinction between moral compromise with public agreement and moral compromise with public disagreement is also made. Circumstances in which the former might be permissible are outlined, and the sense in which it is allowed all things considered to agree is made clear. The relevant discussions of Dan Brock and Mary Warnock on the role of the philosopher to public policy are critically reviewed. Finally, a brief list is offered of the considerations relevant to an estimation of whether and, if so, when such compromise is allowed.