University of Utah

About: University of Utah is a education organization based out in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 52894 authors who have published 124076 publications receiving 5265834 citations. The organization is also known as: The U & The University of Utah.

PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ: Software for Processing and Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Trajectory Data

Abstract: We describe PTRAJ and its successor CPPTRAJ, two complementary, portable, and freely available computer programs for the analysis and processing of time series of three-dimensional atomic positions (i.e., coordinate trajectories) and the data therein derived. Common tools include the ability to manipulate the data to convert among trajectory formats, process groups of trajectories generated with ensemble methods (e.g., replica exchange molecular dynamics), image with periodic boundary conditions, create average structures, strip subsets of the system, and perform calculations such as RMS fitting, measuring distances, B-factors, radii of gyration, radial distribution functions, and time correlations, among other actions and analyses. Both the PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ programs and source code are freely available under the GNU General Public License version 3 and are currently distributed within the AmberTools 12 suite of support programs that make up part of the Amber package of computer programs (see http://ambe...

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 Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Abstract: BACKGROUND The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Hepcidin Regulates Cellular Iron Efflux by Binding to Ferroportin and Inducing Its Internalization

Abstract: Hepcidin is a peptide hormone secreted by the liver in response to iron loading and inflammation. Decreased hepcidin leads to tissue iron overload, whereas hepcidin overproduction leads to hypoferremia and the anemia of inflammation. Ferroportin is an iron exporter present on the surface of absorptive enterocytes, macrophages, hepatocytes, and placental cells. Here we report that hepcidin bound to ferroportin in tissue culture cells. After binding, ferroportin was internalized and degraded, leading to decreased export of cellular iron. The posttranslational regulation of ferroportin by hepcidin may thus complete a homeostatic loop: Iron regulates the secretion of hepcidin, which in turn controls the concentration of ferroportin on the cell surface.

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.