University of Texas Medical Branch

About: University of Texas Medical Branch is a education organization based out in Galveston, Texas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Virus. The organization has 22033 authors who have published 38268 publications receiving 1517502 citations. The organization is also known as: The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston & UTMB.

Intraperitoneal cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide versus intravenous cisplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide for stage III ovarian cancer

Abstract: Background Intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard primary therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase 3 trial to compare the effects of intraperitoneal and intravenous cisplatin on the survival of women with previously untreated, stage III, epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods The patients underwent an initial exploratory laparotomy and resection of all tumor masses larger than 2 cm. Within four weeks after surgery, six courses of intravenous cyclophosphamide (600 mg per square meter of body-surface area per course) plus either intraperitoneal cisplatin (100 mg per square meter) or intravenous cisplatin (100 mg per square meter) were administered at three-week intervals. Results Of 654 randomized patients, 546 were eligible for the study. The estimated median survival was significantly longer in the group receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin (49 months; 95 percent confidence interval, 42 to 56) than in the group receiving intravenous cisplatin (41 months; 95 percent confidence ...

Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection

Abstract: Globally, hepatitis C virus (HCV) has infected an estimated 130 million people, most of whom are chronically infected. HCV-infected people serve as a reservoir for transmission to others and are at risk for developing chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It has been estimated that HCV accounts for 27% of cirrhosis and 25% of HCC worldwide. HCV infection has likely been endemic in many populations for centuries. However, the wave of increased HCV-related morbidity and mortality that we are now facing is the result of an unprecedented increase in the spread of HCV during the 20th century. Two 20th century events appear to be responsible for this increase; the widespread availability of injectable therapies and the illicit use of injectable drugs.

Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults.

Abstract: In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1, a pandemic. With rapidly accumulating numbers of cases and deaths reported globally2, a vaccine is urgently needed. Here we report the available safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded dose-escalation study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04368728) among 45 healthy adults (18–55 years of age), who were randomized to receive 2 doses—separated by 21 days—of 10 μg, 30 μg or 100 μg of BNT162b1. BNT162b1 is a lipid-nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that encodes the trimerized receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. Local reactions and systemic events were dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient. A second vaccination with 100 μg was not administered because of the increased reactogenicity and a lack of meaningfully increased immunogenicity after a single dose compared with the 30-μg dose. RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second dose. Geometric mean neutralizing titres reached 1.9–4.6-fold that of a panel of COVID-19 convalescent human sera, which were obtained at least 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR. These results support further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate. In a dose-escalation study of the COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in 45 healthy adults, RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second vaccine dose.

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.