| 1. |
- Bar, N., et al.
(author)
-
A reference map of potential determinants for the human serum metabolome
- 2020
-
In: Nature. - : Nature Research. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 588:7836, s. 135-140
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The serum metabolome contains a plethora of biomarkers and causative agents of various diseases, some of which are endogenously produced and some that have been taken up from the environment1. The origins of specific compounds are known, including metabolites that are highly heritable2,3, or those that are influenced by the gut microbiome4, by lifestyle choices such as smoking5, or by diet6. However, the key determinants of most metabolites are still poorly understood. Here we measured the levels of 1,251 metabolites in serum samples from a unique and deeply phenotyped healthy human cohort of 491 individuals. We applied machine-learning algorithms to predict metabolite levels in held-out individuals on the basis of host genetics, gut microbiome, clinical parameters, diet, lifestyle and anthropometric measurements, and obtained statistically significant predictions for more than 76% of the profiled metabolites. Diet and microbiome had the strongest predictive power, and each explained hundreds of metabolites—in some cases, explaining more than 50% of the observed variance. We further validated microbiome-related predictions by showing a high replication rate in two geographically independent cohorts7,8 that were not available to us when we trained the algorithms. We used feature attribution analysis9 to reveal specific dietary and bacterial interactions. We further demonstrate that some of these interactions might be causal, as some metabolites that we predicted to be positively associated with bread were found to increase after a randomized clinical trial of bread intervention. Overall, our results reveal potential determinants of more than 800 metabolites, paving the way towards a mechanistic understanding of alterations in metabolites under different conditions and to designing interventions for manipulating the levels of circulating metabolites.
|
|
| 2. |
- Demetris, A J, et al.
(author)
-
2016 Comprehensive Update of the Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology: Introduction of Antibody-Mediated Rejection.
- 2016
-
In: American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons. - : Elsevier BV. - 1600-6143. ; 16:10, s. 2816-2835
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology reviewed and discussed literature evidence regarding antibody-mediated liver allograft rejection at the 11th (Paris, France, June 5-10, 2011), 12th (Comandatuba, Brazil, August 19-23, 2013), and 13th (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, October 5-10, 2015) meetings of the Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology. Discussion continued online. The primary goal was to introduce guidelines and consensus criteria for the diagnosis of liver allograft antibody-mediated rejection and provide a comprehensive update of all Banff Schema recommendations. Included are new recommendations for complement component 4d tissue staining and interpretation, staging liver allograft fibrosis, and findings related to immunosuppression minimization. In an effort to create a single reference document, previous unchanged criteria are also included.
|
|
| 3. |
- Alajbeg, Ivan, et al.
(author)
-
Intraoralelectrostimulator for xerostomia relief : along-term, multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled, clinical trial
- 2012
-
In: Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. - : Elsevier. - 2212-4403 .- 2212-4411. ; 113:6, s. 773-781
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: A previous sham-controlled multinational study demonstrated the short-term efficacy and safety for xerostomia treatment of an intraoral device that delivers electrostimulation to the lingual nerve. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that those beneficial effects would be sustained over an 11-month period. STUDY DESIGN: The device was tested on a mixed sample of 94 patients with xerostomia in an open-label, uncontrolled, prospective multicenter trial. Statutory outcome assessments were done at 5th, 8th, and 11th months and analyzed by multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Improvements achieved at month 5 from baseline were sustained throughout the follow-up period for the primary outcome, xerostomia severity, and the secondary outcomes resting whole salivary flow rate, xerostomia frequency, oral discomfort, and difficulties in speech, swallowing, and sleeping. No significant side effects were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effects of a removable intraoral electrostimulating device were sustained for an 11-month period.
|
|
| 4. |
- Strietzel, Frank P, et al.
(author)
-
Efficacy and safety of an intraoral electrostimulation device for xerostomia relief : A multicenter randomized trial
- 2011
-
In: Arthritis and Rheumatism. - : Wiley. - 0004-3591 .- 1529-0131. ; 63:1, s. 180-190
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy in treating xerostomia and the safety of an intraoral electrostimulation device, containing stimulating electrodes, an electronic circuit and a power source. The device delivers electrostimulation through the oral mucosa to the lingual nerve, in order to enhance the salivary reflex. Methods: The device was tested on a sample of patients with xerostomia due to Sjögren’s syndrome and other sicca conditions in a prospective randomized multi-center trial consisting of two stages: (I) a double blind, cross-over designed stage to compare the effects of the electrically “active” device with the “sham” device, both used for one month, and (II) a 3- month open label stage to assess the long-term influence of the “active” device. Improvement of xerostomia severity from baseline was the primary outcome. Results: A total of 114 subjects were randomized. In Stage I, “active” device performed better than “sham” for patient-reported xerostomia severity (p<0.002), xerostomia frequency (p<0.05), quality of life impairment (p<0.01) and swallowing difficulty (p<0.02). At the end of Stage II, statistically significant improvements were verified for patient-reported xerostomia severity (p<0.0001), xerostomia frequency (p<0.0001), oral discomfort (p<0.001), speech difficulty (p<0.02) and sleeping difficulty (p<0.001), and for resting salivary flow-rate (p<0.01). Conclusion: Daily use of the device alleviated oral dryness, discomfort and some complications of xerostomia, such as speech and sleeping difficulties, and increased salivary output. The results show a cumulative positive effect of the device over the period of the study, from baseline to the trial’s end.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Tait, Brian D, et al.
(author)
-
Consensus Guidelines on the Testing and Clinical Management Issues Associated With HLA and Non-HLA Antibodies in Transplantation.
- 2013
-
In: Transplantation. - 1534-6080. ; 95:1, s. 19-47
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The introduction of solid-phase immunoassay (SPI) technology for the detection and characterization of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies in transplantation while providing greater sensitivity than was obtainable by complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity (CDC) assays has resulted in a new paradigm with respect to the interpretation of donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Although the SPI assay performed on the Luminex instrument (hereafter referred to as the Luminex assay), in particular, has permitted the detection of antibodies not detectable by CDC, the clinical significance of these antibodies is incompletely understood. Nevertheless, the detection of these antibodies has led to changes in the clinical management of sensitized patients. In addition, SPI testing raises technical issues that require resolution and careful consideration when interpreting antibody results. METHODS: With this background, The Transplantation Society convened a group of laboratory and clinical experts in the field of transplantation to prepare a consensus report and make recommendations on the use of this new technology based on both published evidence and expert opinion. Three working groups were formed to address (a) the technical issues with respect to the use of this technology, (b) the interpretation of pretransplantation antibody testing in the context of various clinical settings and organ transplant types (kidney, heart, lung, liver, pancreas, intestinal, and islet cells), and (c) the application of antibody testing in the posttransplantation setting. The three groups were established in November 2011 and convened for a "Consensus Conference on Antibodies in Transplantation" in Rome, Italy, in May 2012. The deliberations of the three groups meeting independently and then together are the bases for this report. RESULTS: A comprehensive list of recommendations was prepared by each group. A summary of the key recommendations follows. Technical Group: (a) SPI must be used for the detection of pretransplantation HLA antibodies in solid organ transplant recipients and, in particular, the use of the single-antigen bead assay to detect antibodies to HLA loci, such as Cw, DQA, DPA, and DPB, which are not readily detected by other methods. (b) The use of SPI for antibody detection should be supplemented with cell-based assays to examine the correlations between the two types of assays and to establish the likelihood of a positive crossmatch (XM). (c) There must be an awareness of the technical factors that can influence the results and their clinical interpretation when using the Luminex bead technology, such as variation in antigen density and the presence of denatured antigen on the beads. Pretransplantation Group: (a) Risk categories should be established based on the antibody and the XM results obtained. (b) DSA detected by CDC and a positive XM should be avoided due to their strong association with antibody-mediated rejection and graft loss. (c) A renal transplantation can be performed in the absence of a prospective XM if single-antigen bead screening for antibodies to all class I and II HLA loci is negative. This decision, however, needs to be taken in agreement with local clinical programs and the relevant regulatory bodies. (d) The presence of DSA HLA antibodies should be avoided in heart and lung transplantation and considered a risk factor for liver, intestinal, and islet cell transplantation. Posttransplantation Group: (a) High-risk patients (i.e., desensitized or DSA positive/XM negative) should be monitored by measurement of DSA and protocol biopsies in the first 3 months after transplantation. (b) Intermediate-risk patients (history of DSA but currently negative) should be monitored for DSA within the first month. If DSA is present, a biopsy should be performed. (c) Low-risk patients (nonsensitized first transplantation) should be screened for DSA at least once 3 to 12 months after transplantation. If DSA is detected, a biopsy should be performed. In all three categories, the recommendations for subsequent treatment are based on the biopsy results. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive list of recommendations is provided covering the technical and pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring of HLA antibodies in solid organ transplantation. The recommendations are intended to provide state-of-the-art guidance in the use and clinical application of recently developed methods for HLA antibody detection when used in conjunction with traditional methods.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
