| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Chen, DS, et al.
(author)
-
Single cell atlas for 11 non-model mammals, reptiles and birds
- 2021
-
In: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1, s. 7083-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The availability of viral entry factors is a prerequisite for the cross-species transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Large-scale single-cell screening of animal cells could reveal the expression patterns of viral entry genes in different hosts. However, such exploration for SARS-CoV-2 remains limited. Here, we perform single-nucleus RNA sequencing for 11 non-model species, including pets (cat, dog, hamster, and lizard), livestock (goat and rabbit), poultry (duck and pigeon), and wildlife (pangolin, tiger, and deer), and investigated the co-expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Furthermore, cross-species analysis of the lung cell atlas of the studied mammals, reptiles, and birds reveals core developmental programs, critical connectomes, and conserved regulatory circuits among these evolutionarily distant species. Overall, our work provides a compendium of gene expression profiles for non-model animals, which could be employed to identify potential SARS-CoV-2 target cells and putative zoonotic reservoirs.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Zhang, JR, et al.
(author)
-
Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour
- 2018
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.
|
|
| 9. |
- Thomas, HS, et al.
(author)
-
- 2019
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
