Objective: To investigate the intelligence development of the low birth weight babies and related factors. Method: The development ability of 190 low birth weight babies was assessed with the Revised Gesell Development Schedule. The result was compared with that of normal control. Result: The development quotients (DQ) of low birth weight infants in motor, adaptive and personal/social areas at 1 and 2 years of age and in language at 2 years of age were significantly lower than that of the normal controls. The stepwise regression analysis showed that all performances in motor, adaptive, language and personal/social areas were significantly related to age, sex, head circumstance, low birth weight and feeding way of infants, and education of their parents. Conclusion: Low birth weight infants have poorer intelligence at the age of 1 and 2 years than normal controls.

[Aim] To gain the fusion protein purified GST-AEP.[Methods] The protein GST-AEP was expressed in E.Coli-DH5? as a fusion protein induced by IPTG.The protein was a kind of inclusion body.The purifying and refolding to inclusion body were optimized.The purity of GST-AEP was identified by 12% SDS-PAGE and thin-layer scanning analysis.The quantitation of the fusion protein GST-AEP was done with BCA Protein Assay.[Results] Purity of GST-AEP was higher than 90% and concentration was about 0.163?g/?l.[Conclusion] The fusion protein was highly purified and the method of fusion protein purification from the inclusion body was developed,which was the basis for further study on AEP.

Proteasome is a multi-subunit protease complex in eukaryocytes, and plays an important role in ubiquitin-proteosome pathway. Recombinant proteasome can be used to screen proteasome inhibitors. In this study, recombinant plasmid of pET28a-PSMB1 was constructed by inserting human proteasome catalytic subunit (PSMB1) cDNA (726 bp) into the prokaryotic expression vector pET28a(+), and transforming the plasmid into E. coli BL21(DE3) cells for expression. After overnight induction (1 mmol/L IPTG, 20 degrees C), an expected protein band with molecular weight of 27 kDa was observed on SDS-PAGE gel. The recombinant protein was then purified through affinity chromatography, and the purity is more than 95%. The amino acid sequence of the recombinant protein was validated by NanoLC-MS/MS. The data from in vitro BIAcore analysis showed that the recombinant PSMB1 could bind to celastrol. The binding affinity between PSMB1 and 10 micromol/L celastrol was more than 27RU.
Binding Sites ; Escherichia coli ; genetics ; metabolism ; Genetic Vectors ; genetics ; Humans ; Proteasome Endopeptidase Complex ; biosynthesis ; genetics ; isolation & purification ; Proteasome Inhibitors ; isolation & purification ; Recombinant Proteins ; biosynthesis ; genetics ; metabolism ; Triterpenes ; metabolism ; Ubiquitin

Objective:To compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder for colonoscopy bowel preparation.Methods:A total of 283 randomized patients from 9 centers in China taking OSS ( n=143) or PEG ( n=140) using two-day split bowel preparation regimen received colonoscopy and assessment. The primary index was the bowel preparation success rate [global Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS)≥ 6 by independent assessment center]. Secondary indices included BBPS global and segmental scores, investigator satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) with the quality of bowel preparation, patient satisfaction assessed by questionnaires, and patient tolerance assessed by Sharma scale. Compliance and safety were compared between the two groups. Results:The bowel preparation success rates were 100.0% for OSS and 99.3% for PEG [adjusted difference 0.7% (95% CI: -5.3% - 6.7%), P<0.001 for non-inferiority]. The BBPS global score in OSS group was significantly higher than that in PEG group (8.1 VS 7.7, P<0.001). The segment BBPS scores were also higher in OSS group than those in PEG group for all 3 segments (right colon: 2.4 VS 2.3, P=0.002; transverse colon: 2.8 VS 2.7, P=0.018; left colon: 2.8 VS 2.7, P=0.007). Investigator Likert score in the OSS group was significantly higher than that in the PEG group (2.6 VS 2.3, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in compliance between OSS and PEG, except for the second dose (90.9% VS 82.6%, P=0.039). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction, Sharma score or proportion of patients with tolerance-related symptoms between the two groups. Safety was comparable between the two groups, and all adverse events were mild to moderate. Conclusion:OSS has comparable efficacy with PEG, with higher BBPS scores in all segments, better investigator satisfaction, better compliance in split dose, and comparable patient tolerance and safety.

Objective:To investigate the current status of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in China, and to provide supporting data and reference for the development of endoscopic treatment.Methods:In this study, initiated by the Liver Health Consortium in China (CHESS), a questionnaire was designed and distributed online to investigate the basic condition of endoscopic treatment for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension in 2022 in China. Questions included annual number and indication of endoscopic procedures, adherence to guideline for preventing esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB), management and timing of emergent EGVB, management of gastric and isolated varices, and improvement of endoscopic treatment. Proportions of hospitals concerning therapeutic choices to all participant hospitals were calculated. Guideline adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals were compared by using Chi-square test.Results:A total of 836 hospitals from 31 provinces (anotomous regions and municipalities) participated in the survey. According to the survey, the control of acute EGVB (49.3%, 412/836) and the prevention of recurrent bleeding (38.3%, 320/836) were major indications of endoscopic treatment. For primary [non-selective β-blocker (NSBB) or endoscopic therapies] and secondary prophylaxis (NSBB and endoscopic therapies) of EGVB, adherence to domestic guideline was 72.5% (606/836) and 39.2% (328/836), respectively. There were significant differences in the adherence between secondary and tertiary hospitals in primary prophylaxis of EGVB [71.0% (495/697) VS 79.9% (111/139), χ2=4.11, P=0.033] and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB [41.6% (290/697) VS 27.3% (38/139), χ2=9.31, P=0.002]. A total of 78.2% (654/836) hospitals preferred endoscopic therapies treating acute EGVB, and endoscopic therapy was more likely to be the first choice for treating acute EGVB in tertiary hospitals (82.6%, 576/697) than secondary hospitals [56.1% (78/139), χ2=46.33, P<0.001]. The optimal timing was usually within 12 hours (48.5%, 317/654) and 12-24 hours (36.9%, 241/654) after the bleeding. Regarding the management of gastroesophageal varices type 2 and isolated gastric varices type 1, most hospitals used cyanoacrylate injection in combination with sclerotherapy [48.2% (403/836) and 29.9% (250/836), respectively], but substantial proportions of hospitals preferred clip-assisted therapies [12.4% (104/836) and 26.4% (221/836), respectively]. Improving the skills of endoscopic doctors (84.2%, 704/836), and enhancing the precision of pre-procedure evaluation and quality of multidisciplinary team (78.9%, 660/836) were considered urgent needs in the development of endoscopic treatment. Conclusion:A variety of endoscopic treatments for gastroesophageal varices in portal hypertension are implemented nationwide. Participant hospitals are active to perform emergent endoscopy for acute EGVB, but are inadequate in following recommendations regarding primary and secondary prophylaxis of EGVB. Moreover, the selection of endoscopic procedures for gastric varices differs greatly among hospitals.