European Journal of Nutrition - The French Nutri-Bébé 2013 study aimed to assess the nutritional intake of infants and young children in comparison with the recommendations of the 2013... 相似文献
Klinefelter syndrome (KS) (47,XXY) is the most common aneuploidy (1/650) of sexual chromosome among male (0,1 à 0,2 % of male population) (Hong and Reiss, 2014). Because its large physical phenotypic variability (high tall, sparse hairiness, gynecomastia), this syndrome is largely underdiagnosed (less than 25 % of affected persons) (Samango-Sprouse et al., 2018). Nevertheless, cognitive variability is smaller. Normal to low average total IQ, low verbal IQ, social problems and high levels of psychiatric comorbidities including early aggressiveness are commonly described (Hong and Reiss, 2014). In Denmark, higher risks of committing sexual crime and arson (compared to criminal controls) was recently reported (Stochholm et al., 2012). Quite a few clinically relevant cases reports scattered in the literature, suggests the presence of a pattern of a specific subtype of KS inpatients among forensic population (Bénézech, 1975). However, very few studies provide quantitative or qualitative pertaining to robust results. KS well-documented neurobiological (van Rijn, 2018) (e.g. low levels of testosterone), neuropsychological (Bénézech, 1975; Hong and Reiss, 2014; Samango-Sprouse et al., 2018; Savic, 2012; Seara-Cardoso et al., 2016; Senon, 2005; Stochholm et al., 2012; van Rijn, 2018; van Rijn et al., 2008; van Rijn et al., 2018; van Rijn et al., 2014; van Rijn et al., 2012) [29] (e.g. alterations of both complex cerebral — attention, empathy — and behavioral regulation functions - inhibition, mental flexibility, emotional response modulation, control of own actions) and neuroanatomical (Hong and Reiss, 2014; Itti et al., 2003; Savic, 2012; van Rijn et al., 2008; van Rijn et al., 2012) [29] (e.g. limbic system and temporal lobe abnormal volume, hemispheric specialization shortcoming) features may be helpful to understand comorbid symptoms psychopathology. Numbers of recent studies conduct on KS pediatric or adult population provide interesting results on conduct, anxiety, psychotic and autism spectrum disorders. In addition, some authors use genetic and epigenetic specific features of sex chromosome aneuploidies (e.g. X genes neurodevelopmental role; imprinting) in order to clarify genotype-phenotype links of comorbid symptoms (Bruining et al., 2011; Zitzmann et al., 2004;). With Belgian colleagues from the Social Defense Research Center (CRDS, Tournai, Belgium), we are currently recruiting KS inpatients from security hospitals or psychiatric units in Belgium and France. We aim to assess psychopathic traits with the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R, Hare) (Hare, 2003). Our first results concerning 3 KS males outline that PCL-R is useful for the characterization of clinical phenotype among KS forensic sample. While three of them present psychopathic traits, two of them present categorical double diagnose “psychopathy-KS” (total PCL-R score > = 30/40 (Delannoy et al., 2017)). Moreover, dimensional analysis support our hypothesis of a higher prevalence of “explosive profile” in comparison to other psychopathic profiles in our sample (Delannoy et al., 2017). The present article summarizes historic background (e.g. “psychopathy” disappearance of mental disorder reference classification schemes, “crime chromosome” (Bénézech, 1975)) and current context argues (e.g. French psychiatrists court experts widely refer to psychopathy concept despite a lack of consensual definition (Senon, 2005), weak knowledge and training of PCL-R and its related biopsychological recent findings (Blair, 2013; de Oliveira-Souza et al., 2008; Dotterer et al., 2017; Glenn and Raine, 2014; Hosking et al., 2017; Korponay et al., 2017; Pham, 1995; Pham, 2005; Raine, 2008; Raine et al., 2003); stigma and discrimination apprehensions of KS and psychopath) that motivate our research project. Finally, we discuss the advantages of our research protocol on KS participants assessed with PCL-R, such as tackling stigma and discrimination, better understanding psychopathology, and clarifying murky interactions of biological, psychological and social factors entangled in the development of these two fascinating troubles. 相似文献
Myostatin (MSTN) is a transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) family member that normally acts to limit muscle growth. The function of MSTN is partially redundant with that of another TGF-β family member, activin A. MSTN and activin A are capable of signaling through a complex of type II and type I receptors. Here, we investigated the roles of two type II receptors (ACVR2 and ACVR2B) and two type I receptors (ALK4 and ALK5) in the regulation of muscle mass by these ligands by genetically targeting these receptors either alone or in combination specifically in myofibers in mice. We show that targeting signaling in myofibers is sufficient to cause significant increases in muscle mass, showing that myofibers are the direct target for signaling by these ligands in the regulation of muscle growth. Moreover, we show that there is functional redundancy between the two type II receptors as well as between the two type I receptors and that all four type II/type I receptor combinations are utilized in vivo. Targeting signaling specifically in myofibers also led to reductions in overall body fat content and improved glucose metabolism in mice fed either regular chow or a high-fat diet, demonstrating that these metabolic effects are the result of enhanced muscling. We observed no effect, however, on either bone density or muscle regeneration in mice in which signaling was targeted in myofibers. The latter finding implies that MSTN likely signals to other cells, such as satellite cells, in addition to myofibers to regulate muscle homeostasis.Myostatin (MSTN) is a secreted signaling molecule that normally acts to limit skeletal muscle growth (for review, see ref. 1). Mice lacking MSTN exhibit dramatic increases in muscle mass throughout the body, with individual muscles growing to about twice the normal size (2). MSTN appears to play two distinct roles in regulating muscle size, one to regulate the number of muscle fibers that are formed during development and a second to regulate the growth of those fibers postnatally. The sequence of MSTN has been highly conserved through evolution, with the mature MSTN peptide being identical in species as divergent as humans and turkeys (3). The function of MSTN has also been conserved, and targeted or naturally occurring mutations in MSTN have been shown to cause increased muscling in numerous species, including cattle (3–5), sheep (6), dogs (7), rabbits (8), rats (9), swine (10), goats (11), and humans (12). Numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have developed biologic agents capable of blocking MSTN activity, and these have been tested in clinical trials for a wide range of indications, including Duchenne and facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, inclusion body myositis, muscle atrophy following falls and hip fracture surgery, age-related sarcopenia, Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, and cachexia due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, end-stage kidney disease, and cancer.The finding that certain inhibitors of MSTN signaling can increase muscle mass even in Mstn−/− mice revealed that the function of MSTN as a negative regulator of muscle mass is partially redundant with at least one other TGF-β family member (13, 14), and subsequent studies have identified activin A as one of these cooperating ligands (15, 16). MSTN and activin A share many key regulatory and signaling components. For example, the activities of both MSTN and activin A can be modulated extracellularly by naturally occurring inhibitory binding proteins, including follistatin (17, 18) and the follistatin-related protein, FSTL-3 or FLRG (19, 20). Moreover, MSTN and activin A also appear to share receptor components. Based on in vitro studies, MSTN is capable of binding initially to the activin type II receptors, ACVR2 and ACVR2B (also called ActRIIA and ActRIIB) (18) followed by engagement of the type I receptors, ALK4 and ALK5 (21). In previous studies, we presented genetic evidence supporting a role for both ACVR2 and ACVR2B in mediating MSTN signaling and regulating muscle mass in vivo. Specifically, we showed that mice expressing a truncated, dominant-negative form of ACVR2B in skeletal muscle (18) or carrying deletion mutations in Acvr2 and/or Acvr2b (13) have significantly increased muscle mass. One limitation of the latter study, however, was that we could not examine the consequence of complete loss of both receptors using the deletion alleles, as double homozygous mutants die early during embryogenesis (22). Moreover, the roles that the two type I receptors, ALK4 and ALK5, play in regulating MSTN and activin A signaling in muscle in vivo have not yet been documented using genetic approaches. Here, we present the results of studies in which we used floxed alleles for each of the type II and type I receptor genes in order to target these receptors alone and in combination in muscle fibers. We show that these receptors are functionally redundant and that signaling through each of these receptors contributes to the overall control of muscle mass. 相似文献
Introduction: Cancer staging has historically been based solely on the anatomic extent of the tumor (T), spread to lymph nodes (N), and the presence of distant metastases (M). More recently biologic factors have been added to modify TNM stage groups to provide more accurate prognosis for patients.
Areas covered: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) updated breast cancer staging in 2016 to include T, N, M, tumor grade and expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors and HER2. Addition of these factors changed the stage group for a large fraction of cases compared to prior TNM stage groupings. This updated ‘prognostic stage’ provides more robust and precise prognosis information.
Expert opinion: Inclusion of biological information in staging changes the meaning and the use of stage in clinical practice. This paper reviews the evidence supporting these changes, limitations affecting staging, and discusses the implications for clinical practice and the future of breast cancer staging. 相似文献