1,25(OH)2Vitamin D3 induces elevated expression of the cell cycle inhibitor p18 in a squamous cell carcinoma cell line of the head and neck

BACKGROUND: 1Alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [1,25(OH)(2) Vitamin D(3)] induces growth inhibition in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cell lines of the head and neck by arresting the cells in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle, probably due to an enhanced expression of p21, which could be demonstrated in other cell lines (JPPA, SCC9) before. In SCC25, a SCC cell line isolated from tongue, growth inhibition but no overexpression of p21 was detected. The retinoblastoma gene, as a direct target of G1 cyclin-CDK complexes, showed an obvious shift from the hyperphosphorylated to the hypophosphorylated form under 1,25(OH)(2)Vitamin D(3), which indicates that the growth inhibition takes place in the G0/G1 phase. To explore the possible pathway of growth inhibition in SCC25 we investigated other cell cycle inhibitors (p18, p19, p27). METHODS: Synchronized cells were treated with 1,25(OH)(2)Vitamin D(3) over 96 h. The cell cycle status and expression of cell cycle-regulating proteins was determined by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and Western blotting. An overexpression of p18 in 1,25(OH)(2)Vitamin D(3) vs. ethanol-treated cells was determined until 30 h in SCC25. No influence was detectable on the expression of p27 and p19. CONCLUSION: One mechanism by which 1,25(OH)(2)Vitamin D(3) controls cell growth might be the upregulation of p21. As p21 was unsusceptible to 1,25(OH)(2)Vitamin D(3) in SCC25, other inhibiting proteins were necessary to be tested. The proven upregulation of p18 seems to be the responsible step for growth inhibition of 1,25(OH)(2)Vitamin D(3) in SCC25.     

张继泽主任医师逆转萎缩性胃炎经验举隅

慢性萎缩性胃炎是以胃黏膜上皮和腺体萎缩、黏膜变薄为特征的慢性疾病。属中医胃脘痛、胃痞等范畴。其病因病机较为复杂,多与饮食不调、情志不畅有关,尤其是饮酒、过食刺激之品,致使脾胃受损,阳气郁遏不振,纳运失司,化源不足,气血阴液亏乏;或中焦运化无力,湿邪滞塞,郁而化热;或     

The Impact of Parity on Course of Labor in a Contemporary Population

Abstract: Background: Few studies have examined in depth the labor progression of multiparas to determine if there is any additional impact of being parous beyond the first birth. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of parity on labor progression in contemporary obstetric practice. Methods: Our sample consisted of all low‐risk women who delivered a term, live‐born infant from January 2002 to March 2004 at a single institution in Delaware, United States (n = 5,589). The median duration of labor by each centimeter of cervical dilation was computed for parity = 0 (n = 2,645); parity = 1 (n = 1,839); parity = 2 (n = 750); and parity = 3 + (n = 355). Results: Multiparas had a significantly faster labor progression from 4 to 10 cm (293, 300, and 313 min, respectively, for parity = 1, parity = 2, and parity = 3 +), compared with nulliparas (383 min for parity = 0), as well as a shorter second stage of labor. However, no significant differences were found in duration of the active phase or the second stage of labor among multiparas. Conclusions: Additional childbearing appears to have no effect of on the progression of labor among multiparous subgroups. The difference in duration of the active phase between nulliparas and multiparas is substantially smaller in a contemporary population. (BIRTH 33:1 March 2006)     

Impaired helix 12 dynamics due to proline 892 substitutions in the androgen receptor are associated with complete androgen insensitivity

Human Molecular Genetics (2006) 15, 921–931;     

What is in a cause? Exploring the relationship between genetic cause and felt stigma

PURPOSE: Concern over stigma as a consequence of genetic testing has grown in response to the recent increase in genetic research and testing resulting from the Human Genome Project. However, whether a genetic or hereditary basis necessarily confers a stigma to a condition remains unexamined. METHODS: We performed a qualitative interview study with 86 individuals with one of four conditions: deafness or hearing loss, breast cancer, sickle cell disease, and cystic fibrosis. The first two groups were divided approximately between people who ascribed their conditions to a genetic or hereditary cause and those who did not. RESULTS: Respondents interpreted genetic or hereditary causes and nongenetic causes in a variety of ways. Subjects with breast cancer reported the most consistently negative interpretation of genetic cause. This response concerned future ill health, not an enduring sense of stigma. Deaf and hard of hearing subjects provided the most consistently positive comments about a genetic or hereditary basis to their condition, casting familial hearing loss as a vital component of group and individual identity. Respondents with sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis offered similar and positive interpretations of the genetic cause of their condition insofar as it meant their conditions were not contagious. CONCLUSIONS: Although some subjects report feeling stigmatized as a result of their condition, this stigmatization is not uniformly associated with the condition's cause, genetic or otherwise. Instead, stigma emerges from a variety of sources in the context of the lived experience of a particular condition.