| 1. |
- Allentoft, Morten E., et al.
(författare)
-
Population genomics of post-glacial western Eurasia
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Nature. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 625:7994, s. 301-311
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Western Eurasia witnessed several large-scale human migrations during the Holocene1–5. Here, to investigate the cross-continental effects of these migrations, we shotgun-sequenced 317 genomes—mainly from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods—from across northern and western Eurasia. These were imputed alongside published data to obtain diploid genotypes from more than 1,600 ancient humans. Our analyses revealed a ‘great divide’ genomic boundary extending from the Black Sea to the Baltic. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were highly genetically differentiated east and west of this zone, and the effect of the neolithization was equally disparate. Large-scale ancestry shifts occurred in the west as farming was introduced, including near-total replacement of hunter-gatherers in many areas, whereas no substantial ancestry shifts happened east of the zone during the same period. Similarly, relatedness decreased in the west from the Neolithic transition onwards, whereas, east of the Urals, relatedness remained high until around 4,000 bp, consistent with the persistence of localized groups of hunter-gatherers. The boundary dissolved when Yamnaya-related ancestry spread across western Eurasia around 5,000 bp, resulting in a second major turnover that reached most parts of Europe within a 1,000-year span. The genetic origin and fate of the Yamnaya have remained elusive, but we show that hunter-gatherers from the Middle Don region contributed ancestry to them. Yamnaya groups later admixed with individuals associated with the Globular Amphora culture before expanding into Europe. Similar turnovers occurred in western Siberia, where we report new genomic data from a ‘Neolithic steppe’ cline spanning the Siberian forest steppe to Lake Baikal. These prehistoric migrations had profound and lasting effects on the genetic diversity of Eurasian populations.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bomholt, Tobias, et al.
(författare)
-
The Accuracy of Hemoglobin A1c and Fructosamine Evaluated by Long-Term Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Undergoing Hemodialysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Blood Purification. - : S. Karger. - 0253-5068 .- 1421-9735. ; 51:7, s. 608-616
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: The accuracy of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as a glycemic marker in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) receiving hemodialysis (HD) remains unknown. To assess accuracy, we compared HbA1c and fructosamine levels with interstitial glucose measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with T2D receiving HD.METHODS: Thirty patients in the HD group and 36 patients in the control group (T2D and an estimated glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min/1.73 m2) completed the study period of 17 weeks. CGM (Ipro2®, Medtronic) was performed 5 times for periods of up to 7 days (with 4-week intervals) during a 16-week period. HbA1c (mmol/mol), the estimated mean plasma glucose from HbA1c (eMPGA1c [mmol/L]) and fructosamine (μmol/L) was measured at week 17 and compared with mean sensor glucose levels from CGM.FINDINGS: In the HD group, mean sensor glucose was 1.4 mmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-1.8) higher than the eMPGA1c, whereas the difference for controls was 0.1 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.1-[0.4]; p < 0.001). Adjusted for mean sensor glucose, HbA1c was lower in the HD group (-7.3 mmol/mol, 95% CI: -10.0-[-4.7]) than in the control group (p < 0.001), with no difference detected for fructosamine (p = 0.64).DISCUSSION: HbA1c evaluated by CGM underestimates plasma glucose levels in patients receiving HD. The underestimation represents a clinical challenge in optimizing glycemic control in the HD population. Fructosamine is unaffected by the factors affecting HbA1c and appears to be more accurate for glycemic monitoring. CGM or fructosamine could thus complement HbA1c in obtaining more accurate glycemic control in this patient group.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gunst, Jesper D., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate in patients hospitalized with Covid-19-a double-blind randomized controlled trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: eClinicalMedicine. - : Elsevier. - 2589-5370. ; 35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The trans-membrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cell entry and infection. Efficacy and safety of TMPRSS2 inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not been evaluated in randomized trials.Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from April 4, to December 31, 2020. Within 48 h of admission, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate 200 mg three times daily for 5 days or placebo. The primary outcome was time to discharge or clinical improvement measured as ≥2 points improvement on a 7-point ordinal scale. Other outcomes included 30-day mortality, safety and change in oropharyngeal viral load. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04321096. EudraCT Number: 2020-001,200-42.Findings: 137 patients were assigned to receive camostat mesilate and 68 to placebo. Median time to clinical improvement was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) in the camostat group and 5 days (IQR, 2 to 10) in the placebo group (P = 0·31). The hazard ratio for 30-day mortality in the camostat compared with the placebo group was 0·82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0·24 to 2·79; P = 0·75). The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Median change in viral load from baseline to day 5 in the camostat group was -0·22 log10 copies/mL (p <0·05) and -0·82 log10 in the placebo group (P <0·05).Interpretation: Under this protocol, camostat mesilate treatment was not associated with increased adverse events during hospitalization for Covid-19 and did not affect time to clinical improvement, progression to ICU admission or mortality.
|
|
