2.Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for patients with stage Ⅰ to Ⅲ colon cancer incorporating high-risk pathological features.
K X LI ; Q B WU ; F Q ZHAO ; J L ZHANG ; S L LUO ; S D HU ; B WU ; H L LI ; G L LIN ; H Z QIU ; J Y LU ; L XU ; Z WANG ; X H DU ; L KANG ; X WANG ; Z Q WANG ; Q LIU ; Y XIAO
Chinese Journal of Surgery 2023;61(9):753-759
Objective: To examine a predictive model that incorporating high risk pathological factors for the prognosis of stage Ⅰ to Ⅲ colon cancer. Methods: This study retrospectively collected clinicopathological information and survival outcomes of stage Ⅰ~Ⅲ colon cancer patients who underwent curative surgery in 7 tertiary hospitals in China from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017. A total of 1 650 patients were enrolled, aged (M(IQR)) 62 (18) years (range: 14 to 100). There were 963 males and 687 females. The median follow-up period was 51 months. The Cox proportional hazardous regression model was utilized to select high-risk pathological factors, establish the nomogram and scoring system. The Bootstrap resampling method was utilized for internal validation of the model, the concordance index (C-index) was used to assess discrimination and calibration curves were presented to assess model calibration. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot survival curves after risk grouping, and Cox regression was used to compare disease-free survival between subgroups. Results: Age (HR=1.020, 95%CI: 1.008 to 1.033, P=0.001), T stage (T3:HR=1.995,95%CI:1.062 to 3.750,P=0.032;T4:HR=4.196, 95%CI: 2.188 to 8.045, P<0.01), N stage (N1: HR=1.834, 95%CI: 1.307 to 2.574, P<0.01; N2: HR=3.970, 95%CI: 2.724 to 5.787, P<0.01) and number of lymph nodes examined (≥36: HR=0.438, 95%CI: 0.242 to 0.790, P=0.006) were independently associated with disease-free survival. The C-index of the scoring model (model 1) based on age, T stage, N stage, and dichotomous variables of the lymph nodes examined (<12 and ≥12) was 0.723, and the C-index of the scoring model (model 2) based on age, T stage, N stage, and multi-categorical variables of the lymph nodes examined (<12, 12 to <24, 24 to <36, and ≥36) was 0.726. A scoring system was established based on age, T stage, N stage, and multi-categorical variables of lymph nodes examined, the 3-year DFS of the low-risk (≤1), middle-risk (2 to 4) and high-risk (≥5) group were 96.3% (n=711), 89.0% (n=626) and 71.4% (n=313), respectively. Statistically significant difference was observed among groups (P<0.01). Conclusions: The number of lymph nodes examined was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival after curative surgery in patients with stage Ⅰ to Ⅲ colon cancer. Incorporating the number of lymph nodes examined as a multi-categorical variable into the T and N staging system could improve prognostic predictive validity.
Male
;
Female
;
Humans
;
Prognosis
;
Neoplasm Staging
;
Retrospective Studies
;
Nomograms
;
Lymph Nodes/pathology*
;
Risk Factors
;
Colonic Neoplasms/surgery*
3.Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cerebral Venous Thrombosis and Mortality
Thanh N. NGUYEN ; Muhammad M. QURESHI ; Piers KLEIN ; Hiroshi YAMAGAMI ; Mohamad ABDALKADER ; Robert MIKULIK ; Anvitha SATHYA ; Ossama Yassin MANSOUR ; Anna CZLONKOWSKA ; Hannah LO ; Thalia S. FIELD ; Andreas CHARIDIMOU ; Soma BANERJEE ; Shadi YAGHI ; James E. SIEGLER ; Petra SEDOVA ; Joseph KWAN ; Diana Aguiar DE SOUSA ; Jelle DEMEESTERE ; Violiza INOA ; Setareh Salehi OMRAN ; Liqun ZHANG ; Patrik MICHEL ; Davide STRAMBO ; João Pedro MARTO ; Raul G. NOGUEIRA ; ; Espen Saxhaug KRISTOFFERSEN ; Georgios TSIVGOULIS ; Virginia Pujol LEREIS ; Alice MA ; Christian ENZINGER ; Thomas GATTRINGER ; Aminur RAHMAN ; Thomas BONNET ; Noémie LIGOT ; Sylvie DE RAEDT ; Robin LEMMENS ; Peter VANACKER ; Fenne VANDERVORST ; Adriana Bastos CONFORTO ; Raquel C.T. HIDALGO ; Daissy Liliana MORA CUERVO ; Luciana DE OLIVEIRA NEVES ; Isabelle LAMEIRINHAS DA SILVA ; Rodrigo Targa MARTÍNS ; Letícia C. REBELLO ; Igor Bessa SANTIAGO ; Teodora SADELAROVA ; Rosen KALPACHKI ; Filip ALEXIEV ; Elena Adela CORA ; Michael E. KELLY ; Lissa PEELING ; Aleksandra PIKULA ; Hui-Sheng CHEN ; Yimin CHEN ; Shuiquan YANG ; Marina ROJE BEDEKOVIC ; Martin ČABAL ; Dusan TENORA ; Petr FIBRICH ; Pavel DUŠEK ; Helena HLAVÁČOVÁ ; Emanuela HRABANOVSKA ; Lubomír JURÁK ; Jana KADLČÍKOVÁ ; Igor KARPOWICZ ; Lukáš KLEČKA ; Martin KOVÁŘ ; Jiří NEUMANN ; Hana PALOUŠKOVÁ ; Martin REISER ; Vladimir ROHAN ; Libor ŠIMŮNEK ; Ondreij SKODA ; Miroslav ŠKORŇA ; Martin ŠRÁMEK ; Nicolas DRENCK ; Khalid SOBH ; Emilie LESAINE ; Candice SABBEN ; Peggy REINER ; Francois ROUANET ; Daniel STRBIAN ; Stefan BOSKAMP ; Joshua MBROH ; Simon NAGEL ; Michael ROSENKRANZ ; Sven POLI ; Götz THOMALLA ; Theodoros KARAPANAYIOTIDES ; Ioanna KOUTROULOU ; Odysseas KARGIOTIS ; Lina PALAIODIMOU ; José Dominguo BARRIENTOS GUERRA ; Vikram HUDED ; Shashank NAGENDRA ; Chintan PRAJAPATI ; P.N. SYLAJA ; Achmad Firdaus SANI ; Abdoreza GHOREISHI ; Mehdi FARHOUDI ; Elyar SADEGHI HOKMABADI ; Mazyar HASHEMILAR ; Sergiu Ionut SABETAY ; Fadi RAHAL ; Maurizio ACAMPA ; Alessandro ADAMI ; Marco LONGONI ; Raffaele ORNELLO ; Leonardo RENIERI ; Michele ROMOLI ; Simona SACCO ; Andrea SALMAGGI ; Davide SANGALLI ; Andrea ZINI ; Kenichiro SAKAI ; Hiroki FUKUDA ; Kyohei FUJITA ; Hirotoshi IMAMURA ; Miyake KOSUKE ; Manabu SAKAGUCHI ; Kazutaka SONODA ; Yuji MATSUMARU ; Nobuyuki OHARA ; Seigo SHINDO ; Yohei TAKENOBU ; Takeshi YOSHIMOTO ; Kazunori TOYODA ; Takeshi UWATOKO ; Nobuyuki SAKAI ; Nobuaki YAMAMOTO ; Ryoo YAMAMOTO ; Yukako YAZAWA ; Yuri SUGIURA ; Jang-Hyun BAEK ; Si Baek LEE ; Kwon-Duk SEO ; Sung-Il SOHN ; Jin Soo LEE ; Anita Ante ARSOVSKA ; Chan Yong CHIEH ; Wan Asyraf WAN ZAIDI ; Wan Nur Nafisah WAN YAHYA ; Fernando GONGORA-RIVERA ; Manuel MARTINEZ-MARINO ; Adrian INFANTE-VALENZUELA ; Diederik DIPPEL ; Dianne H.K. VAN DAM-NOLEN ; Teddy Y. WU ; Martin PUNTER ; Tajudeen Temitayo ADEBAYO ; Abiodun H. BELLO ; Taofiki Ajao SUNMONU ; Kolawole Wasiu WAHAB ; Antje SUNDSETH ; Amal M. AL HASHMI ; Saima AHMAD ; Umair RASHID ; Liliana RODRIGUEZ-KADOTA ; Miguel Ángel VENCES ; Patrick Matic YALUNG ; Jon Stewart Hao DY ; Waldemar BROLA ; Aleksander DĘBIEC ; Malgorzata DOROBEK ; Michal Adam KARLINSKI ; Beata M. LABUZ-ROSZAK ; Anetta LASEK-BAL ; Halina SIENKIEWICZ-JAROSZ ; Jacek STASZEWSKI ; Piotr SOBOLEWSKI ; Marcin WIĄCEK ; Justyna ZIELINSKA-TUREK ; André Pinho ARAÚJO ; Mariana ROCHA ; Pedro CASTRO ; Patricia FERREIRA ; Ana Paiva NUNES ; Luísa FONSECA ; Teresa PINHO E MELO ; Miguel RODRIGUES ; M Luis SILVA ; Bogdan CIOPLEIAS ; Adela DIMITRIADE ; Cristian FALUP-PECURARIU ; May Adel HAMID ; Narayanaswamy VENKETASUBRAMANIAN ; Georgi KRASTEV ; Jozef HARING ; Oscar AYO-MARTIN ; Francisco HERNANDEZ-FERNANDEZ ; Jordi BLASCO ; Alejandro RODRÍGUEZ-VÁZQUEZ ; Antonio CRUZ-CULEBRAS ; Francisco MONICHE ; Joan MONTANER ; Soledad PEREZ-SANCHEZ ; María Jesús GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ ; Marta GUILLÁN RODRÍGUEZ ; Gianmarco BERNAVA ; Manuel BOLOGNESE ; Emmanuel CARRERA ; Anchalee CHUROJANA ; Ozlem AYKAC ; Atilla Özcan ÖZDEMIR ; Arsida BAJRAMI ; Songul SENADIM ; Syed I. HUSSAIN ; Seby JOHN ; Kailash KRISHNAN ; Robert LENTHALL ; Kaiz S. ASIF ; Kristine BELOW ; Jose BILLER ; Michael CHEN ; Alex CHEBL ; Marco COLASURDO ; Alexandra CZAP ; Adam H. DE HAVENON ; Sushrut DHARMADHIKARI ; Clifford J. ESKEY ; Mudassir FAROOQUI ; Steven K. FESKE ; Nitin GOYAL ; Kasey B. GRIMMETT ; Amy K. GUZIK ; Diogo C. HAUSSEN ; Majesta HOVINGH ; Dinesh JILLELA ; Peter T. KAN ; Rakesh KHATRI ; Naim N. KHOURY ; Nicole L. KILEY ; Murali K. KOLIKONDA ; Stephanie LARA ; Grace LI ; Italo LINFANTE ; Aaron I. LOOCHTAN ; Carlos D. LOPEZ ; Sarah LYCAN ; Shailesh S. MALE ; Fadi NAHAB ; Laith MAALI ; Hesham E. MASOUD ; Jiangyong MIN ; Santiago ORGETA-GUTIERREZ ; Ghada A. MOHAMED ; Mahmoud MOHAMMADEN ; Krishna NALLEBALLE ; Yazan RADAIDEH ; Pankajavalli RAMAKRISHNAN ; Bliss RAYO-TARANTO ; Diana M. ROJAS-SOTO ; Sean RULAND ; Alexis N. SIMPKINS ; Sunil A. SHETH ; Amy K. STAROSCIAK ; Nicholas E. TARLOV ; Robert A. TAYLOR ; Barbara VOETSCH ; Linda ZHANG ; Hai Quang DUONG ; Viet-Phuong DAO ; Huynh Vu LE ; Thong Nhu PHAM ; Mai Duy TON ; Anh Duc TRAN ; Osama O. ZAIDAT ; Paolo MACHI ; Elisabeth DIRREN ; Claudio RODRÍGUEZ FERNÁNDEZ ; Jorge ESCARTÍN LÓPEZ ; Jose Carlos FERNÁNDEZ FERRO ; Niloofar MOHAMMADZADEH ; Neil C. SURYADEVARA, MD ; Beatriz DE LA CRUZ FERNÁNDEZ ; Filipe BESSA ; Nina JANCAR ; Megan BRADY ; Dawn SCOZZARI
Journal of Stroke 2022;24(2):256-265
Background:
and Purpose Recent studies suggested an increased incidence of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the volume of CVT hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the preceding year.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study of 171 stroke centers from 49 countries. We recorded COVID-19 admission volumes, CVT hospitalization, and CVT in-hospital mortality from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. CVT diagnoses were identified by International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes or stroke databases. We additionally sought to compare the same metrics in the first 5 months of 2021 compared to the corresponding months in 2019 and 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04934020).
Results:
There were 2,313 CVT admissions across the 1-year pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic year (2020); no differences in CVT volume or CVT mortality were observed. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT volumes compared to 2019 (27.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.2 to 32.0; P<0.0001) and 2020 (41.4%; 95% CI, 37.0 to 46.0; P<0.0001). A COVID-19 diagnosis was present in 7.6% (132/1,738) of CVT hospitalizations. CVT was present in 0.04% (103/292,080) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. During the first pandemic year, CVT mortality was higher in patients who were COVID positive compared to COVID negative patients (8/53 [15.0%] vs. 41/910 [4.5%], P=0.004). There was an increase in CVT mortality during the first 5 months of pandemic years 2020 and 2021 compared to the first 5 months of the pre-pandemic year 2019 (2019 vs. 2020: 2.26% vs. 4.74%, P=0.05; 2019 vs. 2021: 2.26% vs. 4.99%, P=0.03). In the first 5 months of 2021, there were 26 cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), resulting in six deaths.
Conclusions
During the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic, CVT hospitalization volume and CVT in-hospital mortality did not change compared to the prior year. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher CVT in-hospital mortality. During the first 5 months of 2021, there was an increase in CVT hospitalization volume and increase in CVT-related mortality, partially attributable to VITT.
4.Impact of Multiphase Computed Tomography Angiography for Endovascular Treatment Decision-Making on Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke
Johanna M. OSPEL ; Ondrej VOLNY ; Wu QIU ; Mohamed NAJM ; Moiz HAFEEZ ; Sarah ABDALRAHMAN ; Enrico FAINARDI ; Marta RUBIERA ; Alexander KHAW ; Jai J. SHANKAR ; Michael D. HILL ; Mohammed A. ALMEKHLAFI ; Andrew M. DEMCHUK ; Mayank GOYAL ; Bijoy K. MENON
Journal of Stroke 2021;23(3):377-387
Background:
and Purpose Various imaging paradigms are used for endovascular treatment (EVT) decision-making and outcome estimation in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aim to compare how these imaging paradigms perform for EVT patient selection and outcome estimation.
Methods:
Prospective multi-center cohort study of patients with AIS symptoms with multi-phase computed tomography angiography (mCTA) and computed tomography perfusion (CTP) baseline imaging. mCTA-based EVT-eligibility was defined as presence of large vessel occlusion (LVO) and moderate-to-good collaterals on mCTA. CTP-based eligibility was defined as presence of LVO, ischemic core (defined on relative cerebral blood flow, absolute cerebral blood flow, and cerebral blood volume maps) <70 mL, mismatch-ratio >1.8, absolute mismatch >15 mL. EVT-eligibility and adjusted rates of good outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0–2) based on these imaging paradigms were compared.
Results:
Of 289/464 patients with LVO, 263 (91%) were EVT-eligible by mCTA-criteria versus 63 (22%), 19 (7%) and 103 (36%) by rCBF, aCBF, and CBV-CTP-criteria. CTP and mCTA-criteria were discordant in 40% to 53%. Estimated outcomes were best in patients who met both mCTA and CTP eligibility-criteria and were treated with EVT (62% to 87% good outcome). Patients eligible for EVT by mCTA-criteria and not by CTP-criteria receiving EVT achieved good outcome rates of 53% to 57%. Few patients met CTP-criteria and not mCTA-criteria for EVT.
Conclusions
Simpler imaging selection criteria that rely on little else than detection of the occluded blood vessel may be more sensitive and less specific, thus resulting in more patients being offered EVT and arguably benefiting from it.
6.Impact of Multiphase Computed Tomography Angiography for Endovascular Treatment Decision-Making on Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke
Johanna M. OSPEL ; Ondrej VOLNY ; Wu QIU ; Mohamed NAJM ; Moiz HAFEEZ ; Sarah ABDALRAHMAN ; Enrico FAINARDI ; Marta RUBIERA ; Alexander KHAW ; Jai J. SHANKAR ; Michael D. HILL ; Mohammed A. ALMEKHLAFI ; Andrew M. DEMCHUK ; Mayank GOYAL ; Bijoy K. MENON
Journal of Stroke 2021;23(3):377-387
Background:
and Purpose Various imaging paradigms are used for endovascular treatment (EVT) decision-making and outcome estimation in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aim to compare how these imaging paradigms perform for EVT patient selection and outcome estimation.
Methods:
Prospective multi-center cohort study of patients with AIS symptoms with multi-phase computed tomography angiography (mCTA) and computed tomography perfusion (CTP) baseline imaging. mCTA-based EVT-eligibility was defined as presence of large vessel occlusion (LVO) and moderate-to-good collaterals on mCTA. CTP-based eligibility was defined as presence of LVO, ischemic core (defined on relative cerebral blood flow, absolute cerebral blood flow, and cerebral blood volume maps) <70 mL, mismatch-ratio >1.8, absolute mismatch >15 mL. EVT-eligibility and adjusted rates of good outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0–2) based on these imaging paradigms were compared.
Results:
Of 289/464 patients with LVO, 263 (91%) were EVT-eligible by mCTA-criteria versus 63 (22%), 19 (7%) and 103 (36%) by rCBF, aCBF, and CBV-CTP-criteria. CTP and mCTA-criteria were discordant in 40% to 53%. Estimated outcomes were best in patients who met both mCTA and CTP eligibility-criteria and were treated with EVT (62% to 87% good outcome). Patients eligible for EVT by mCTA-criteria and not by CTP-criteria receiving EVT achieved good outcome rates of 53% to 57%. Few patients met CTP-criteria and not mCTA-criteria for EVT.
Conclusions
Simpler imaging selection criteria that rely on little else than detection of the occluded blood vessel may be more sensitive and less specific, thus resulting in more patients being offered EVT and arguably benefiting from it.
7.Comparing pain relief and functional improvement between methylprednisolone and dexamethasone lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a self-controlled study
Nicholas K. DONOHUE ; Sergey S. TARIMA ; Matthew J. DURAND ; Hong WU
The Korean Journal of Pain 2020;33(2):192-198
Background:
Previous studies have shown varying results between lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) performed with particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in pain relief and functional improvement between particulate and nonparticulate lumbosacral TFESIs in patients who had undergone both injections, sequentially.
Methods:
This was a self-controlled, retrospective study of 20 patients who underwent both a methylprednisolone and a dexamethasone TFESI to the same vertebral level and side. Primary outcomes included pain relief according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional improvement determined by a yeso answer to questions regarding mobility and the activities of daily living. Post-injection data was recorded at 2, 3, and 6 months.
Results:
A decrease in VAS scores of –3.4 ± 3.0 (mean ± standard deviation), –3.1 ± 3.1, and –2.8 ± 3.4 was seen for the methylprednisolone group at 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Similar decreases of –3.9 ± 3.5, –3.4 ± 2.8, and –2.3 ± 3.4 were seen in the dexamethasone group. There was no significant difference in pain relief at any point between the two medications. The percentage of subjects who reported improved function at 2, 3, and 6 months was 65%, 51%, and 41%, respectively, for the methylprednisolone group and 75%, 53%, and 42% for the dexamethasone group.
Conclusions
These findings support the use of non-particulate corticosteroids for lumbosacral TFESIs in the context of documented safety concerns with particulate corticosteroids.
8.Correction to: EGFR signaling augments TLR4 cell surface expression and function in macrophages via regulation of Rab5a activation.
Jing TANG ; Bowei ZHOU ; Melanie J SCOTT ; Linsong CHEN ; Dengming LAI ; Erica K FAN ; Yuehua LI ; Qiang WU ; Timothy R BILLIAR ; Mark A WILSON ; Ping WANG ; Jie FAN
Protein & Cell 2020;11(8):618-619
In the original publication the bands in Fig. 1J and Fig. 2B were not visible. The correct versions of Fig. 1J and Fig. 2B are provided in this correction.
9.DPHL:A DIA Pan-human Protein Mass Spectrometry Library for Robust Biomarker Discovery
Zhu TIANSHENG ; Zhu YI ; Xuan YUE ; Gao HUANHUAN ; Cai XUE ; Piersma R. SANDER ; Pham V. THANG ; Schelfhorst TIM ; Haas R.G.D. RICHARD ; Bijnsdorp V. IRENE ; Sun RUI ; Yue LIANG ; Ruan GUAN ; Zhang QIUSHI ; Hu MO ; Zhou YUE ; Winan J. Van Houdt ; Tessa Y.S. Le Large ; Cloos JACQUELINE ; Wojtuszkiewicz ANNA ; Koppers-Lalic DANIJELA ; B(o)ttger FRANZISKA ; Scheepbouwer CHANTAL ; Brakenhoff H. RUUD ; Geert J.L.H. van Leenders ; Ijzermans N.M. JAN ; Martens W.M. JOHN ; Steenbergen D.M. RENSKE ; Grieken C. NICOLE ; Selvarajan SATHIYAMOORTHY ; Mantoo SANGEETA ; Lee S. SZE ; Yeow J.Y. SERENE ; Alkaff M.F. SYED ; Xiang NAN ; Sun YAOTING ; Yi XIAO ; Dai SHAOZHENG ; Liu WEI ; Lu TIAN ; Wu ZHICHENG ; Liang XIAO ; Wang MAN ; Shao YINGKUAN ; Zheng XI ; Xu KAILUN ; Yang QIN ; Meng YIFAN ; Lu CONG ; Zhu JIANG ; Zheng JIN'E ; Wang BO ; Lou SAI ; Dai YIBEI ; Xu CHAO ; Yu CHENHUAN ; Ying HUAZHONG ; Lim K. TONY ; Wu JIANMIN ; Gao XIAOFEI ; Luan ZHONGZHI ; Teng XIAODONG ; Wu PENG ; Huang SHI'ANG ; Tao ZHIHUA ; Iyer G. NARAYANAN ; Zhou SHUIGENG ; Shao WENGUANG ; Lam HENRY ; Ma DING ; Ji JIAFU ; Kon L. OI ; Zheng SHU ; Aebersold RUEDI ; Jimenez R. CONNIE ; Guo TIANNAN
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics 2020;18(2):104-119
To address the increasing need for detecting and validating protein biomarkers in clinical specimens, mass spectrometry (MS)-based targeted proteomic techniques, including the selected reaction monitoring (SRM), parallel reaction monitoring (PRM), and massively parallel data-independent acquisition (DIA), have been developed. For optimal performance, they require the fragment ion spectra of targeted peptides as prior knowledge. In this report, we describe a MS pipe-line and spectral resource to support targeted proteomics studies for human tissue samples. To build the spectral resource, we integrated common open-source MS computational tools to assemble a freely accessible computational workflow based on Docker. We then applied the workflow to gen-erate DPHL, a comprehensive DIA pan-human library, from 1096 data-dependent acquisition (DDA) MS raw files for 16 types of cancer samples. This extensive spectral resource was then applied to a proteomic study of 17 prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Thereafter, PRM validation was applied to a larger study of 57 PCa patients and the differential expression of three proteins in prostate tumor was validated. As a second application, the DPHL spectral resource was applied to a study consisting of plasma samples from 19 diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients and 18 healthy control subjects. Differentially expressed proteins between DLBCL patients and healthy control subjects were detected by DIA-MS and confirmed by PRM. These data demonstrate that the DPHL supports DIA and PRM MS pipelines for robust protein biomarker discovery. DPHL is freely accessible at https://www.iprox.org/page/project.html?id=IPX0001400000.
10.Progress and Challenges for Live-cell Imaging of Genomic Loci Using CRISPR-based Platforms.
Xiaotian WU ; Shiqi MAO ; Yachen YING ; Christopher J KRUEGER ; Antony K CHEN
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics 2019;17(2):119-128
Chromatin conformation, localization, and dynamics are crucial regulators of cellular behaviors. Although fluorescence in situ hybridization-based techniques have been widely utilized for investigating chromatin architectures in healthy and diseased states, the requirement for cell fixation precludes the comprehensive dynamic analysis necessary to fully understand chromatin activities. This has spurred the development and application of a variety of imaging methodologies for visualizing single chromosomal loci in the native cellular context. In this review, we describe currently-available approaches for imaging single genomic loci in cells, with special focus on clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based imaging approaches. In addition, we discuss some of the challenges that limit the application of CRISPR-based genomic imaging approaches, and potential solutions to address these challenges. We anticipate that, with continued refinement of CRISPR-based imaging techniques, significant understanding can be gained to help decipher chromatin activities and their relevance to cellular physiology and pathogenesis.
CRISPR-Cas Systems
;
genetics
;
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
;
genetics
;
Genetic Loci
;
Genomics
;
Molecular Imaging
;
methods
;
Nanoparticles
;
chemistry

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail