University of Maryland, Baltimore

About: University of Maryland, Baltimore is a education organization based out in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 35249 authors who have published 64702 publications receiving 2936441 citations. The organization is also known as: UMAB & UMB.

A second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs

Abstract: We describe the Phase II HapMap, which characterizes over 3.1 million human single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped in 270 individuals from four geographically diverse populations and includes 25-35% of common SNP variation in the populations surveyed. The map is estimated to capture untyped common variation with an average maximum r2 of between 0.9 and 0.96 depending on population. We demonstrate that the current generation of commercial genome-wide genotyping products captures common Phase II SNPs with an average maximum r2 of up to 0.8 in African and up to 0.95 in non-African populations, and that potential gains in power in association studies can be obtained through imputation. These data also reveal novel aspects of the structure of linkage disequilibrium. We show that 10-30% of pairs of individuals within a population share at least one region of extended genetic identity arising from recent ancestry and that up to 1% of all common variants are untaggable, primarily because they lie within recombination hotspots. We show that recombination rates vary systematically around genes and between genes of different function. Finally, we demonstrate increased differentiation at non-synonymous, compared to synonymous, SNPs, resulting from systematic differences in the strength or efficacy of natural selection between populations.

CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields.

Abstract: The widely used CHARMM additive all-atom force field includes parameters for proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates. In the present article, an extension of the CHARMM force field to drug-like molecules is presented. The resulting CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) covers a wide range of chemical groups present in biomolecules and drug-like molecules, including a large number of heterocyclic scaffolds. The parametrization philosophy behind the force field focuses on quality at the expense of transferability, with the implementation concentrating on an extensible force field. Statistics related to the quality of the parametrization with a focus on experimental validation are presented. Additionally, the parametrization procedure, described fully in the present article in the context of the model systems, pyrrolidine, and 3-phenoxymethylpyrrolidine will allow users to readily extend the force field to chemical groups that are not explicitly covered in the force field as well as add functional groups to and link together molecules already available in the force field. CGenFF thus makes it possible to perform "all-CHARMM" simulations on drug-target interactions thereby extending the utility of CHARMM force fields to medicinally relevant systems.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for Cancer Detection and Familial Predisposition: Development of International Criteria for the Determination of Microsatellite Instability in Colorectal Cancer

Abstract: In December 1997, the National Cancer Institute sponsored "The International Workshop on Microsatellite Instability and RER Phenotypes in Cancer Detection and Familial Predisposition," to review and unify the field. The following recommendations were endorsed at the workshop. (a) The form of genomic instability associated with defective DNA mismatch repair in tumors is to be called microsatellite instability (MSI). (b) A panel of five microsatellites has been validated and is recommended as a reference panel for future research in the field. Tumors may be characterized on the basis of: high-frequency MSI (MSI-H), if two or more of the five markers show instability (i.e., have insertion/deletion mutations), and low-frequency MSI (MSI-L), if only one of the five markers shows instability. The distinction between microsatellite stable (MSS) and low frequency MSI (MSI-L) can only be accomplished if a greater number of markers is utilized. (c) A unique clinical and pathological phenotype is identified for the MSI-H tumors, which comprise approximately 15% of colorectal cancers, whereas MSI-L and MSS tumors appear to be phenotypically similar. MSI-H colorectal tumors are found predominantly in the proximal colon, have unique histopathological features, and are associated with a less aggressive clinical course than are stage-matched MSI-L or MSS tumors. Preclinical models suggest the possibility that these tumors may be resistant to the cytotoxicity induced by certain chemotherapeutic agents. The implications for MSI-L are not yet clear. (d) MSI can be measured in fresh or fixed tumor specimens equally well; microdissection of pathological specimens is recommended to enrich for neoplastic tissue; and normal tissue is required to document the presence of MSI. (e) The "Bethesda guidelines," which were developed in 1996 to assist in the selection of tumors for microsatellite analysis, are endorsed. (f) The spectrum of microsatellite alterations in noncolonic tumors was reviewed, and it was concluded that the above recommendations apply only to colorectal neoplasms. (g) A research agenda was recommended.