University of Tennessee Health Science Center

About: University of Tennessee Health Science Center is a education organization based out in Memphis, Tennessee, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 15716 authors who have published 26884 publications receiving 1176697 citations.

Requirement for Stat4 in interleukin-12-mediated responses of natural killer and T cells

Abstract: Signal transducers and activators of transcription (STATs) are activated by tyrosine phosphorylation in response to cytokines and mediate many of their functional responses. Stat4 was initially cloned as a result of its homology with Stat1 (refs 4, 5) and is widely expressed, although it is only tyrosine-phosphorylated after stimulation of T cells with interleukin (IL)-12 (refs 6,7). IL-12 is required for the T-cell-independent induction of the cytokine interferon (IFN)-gamma, a key step in the initial suppression of bacterial and parasitic infections. IL-12 is also important for the development of a Th1 response, which is critical for effective host defence against intracellular pathogens. To determine the function of Stat4 and its role in IL-12 signalling, we have produced mice that lack Stat4 by gene targeting. The mice were viable and fertile, with no detectable defects in haematopoiesis. However, all IL-12 functions tested were disrupted, including the induction of IFN-gamma, mitogenesis, enhancement of natural killer cytolytic function and Th1 differentiation.

Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Health Outcomes During the Intervention and Extended Poststopping Phases of the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trials

Abstract: RESULTS During the CEE plus MPA intervention phase, the numbers of CHD cases were 196 for CEE plus MPA vs 159 for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45) and 206 vs 155, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.53). Other risks included increased stroke, pulmonary embolism, dementia (in women aged65 years), gallbladder disease, and urinary incontinence; benefits included decreased hip fractures, diabetes, and vasomotor symptoms. Most risks and benefits dissipated postintervention, although some elevation in breast cancer risk persisted during cumulative follow-up (434 cases for CEE plus MPA vs 323 for placebo; HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.11-1.48]). The risks and benefits were more balanced during the CEE alone intervention with 204 CHD cases for CEE alone vs 222 cases for placebo (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.781.14) and 104 vs 135, respectively, for invasive breast cancer (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02); cumulatively, there were 168 vs 216, respectively, cases of breast cancer diagnosed (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97). Results for other outcomes were similar to CEE plus MPA. Neither regimen affected all-cause mortality. For CEE alone, younger women (aged 50-59 years) had more favorable results for all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and the global index (nominal P < .05 for trend by age). Absolute risks of adverse events (measured by the global index) per 10 000 women annually taking CEE plus MPA ranged from 12 excess cases for ages of 50-59 years to 38 for ages of 70-79 years; for women taking CEE alone, from 19 fewer cases for ages of 50-59 years to 51 excess cases for ages of 70-79 years. Quality-of-life outcomes had mixed results in both trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Menopausal hormone therapy has a complex pattern of risks and benefits. Findings from the intervention and extended postintervention follow-up of the 2 WHI hormone therapy trials do not support use of this therapy for chronic disease prevention, although it is appropriate for symptom management in some women.

Hypoglycemia and Diabetes: A Report of a Workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To review the evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews of this subject by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society and to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS Five members of the American Diabetes Association and five members of The Endocrine Society with expertise in different aspects of hypoglycemia were invited by the Chair, who is a member of both, to participate in a planning conference call and a 2-day meeting that was also attended by staff from both organizations. Subsequent communications took place via e-mail and phone calls. The writing group consisted of those invitees who participated in the writing of the manuscript. The workgroup meeting was supported by educational grants to the American Diabetes Association from Lilly USA, LLC and Novo Nordisk and sponsorship to the American Diabetes Association from Sanofi. The sponsors had no input into the development of or content of the report. EVIDENCE The writing group considered data from recent clinical trials and other studies to update the prior workgroup report. Unpublished data were not used. Expert opinion was used to develop some conclusions. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus was achieved by group discussion during conference calls and face-to-face meetings, as well as by iterative revisions of the written document. The document was reviewed and approved by the American Diabetes Association’s Professional Practice Committee in October 2012 and approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors in November 2012 and was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee in October 2012 and by Council in November 2012. CONCLUSIONS The workgroup reconfirmed the previous definitions of hypoglycemia in diabetes, reviewed the implications of hypoglycemia on both short- and long-term outcomes, considered the implications of hypoglycemia on treatment outcomes, presented strategies to prevent hypoglycemia, and identified knowledge gaps that should be addressed by future research. In addition, tools for patients to report hypoglycemia at each visit and for clinicians to document counseling are provided.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.