Multi-lectin Affinity Chromatography and Quantitative Proteomic Analysis Reveal Differential Glycoform Levels between Prostate Cancer and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Sera.

Currently prostate-specific antigen is used for prostate cancer (PCa) screening, however it lacks the necessary specificity for differentiating PCa from other diseases of the prostate such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), presenting a clinical need to distinguish these cases at the molecular level. Protein glycosylation plays an important role in a number of cellular processes involved in neoplastic progression and is aberrant in PCa. In this study, we systematically interrogate the alterations in the circulating levels of hundreds of serum proteins and their glycoforms in PCa and BPH samples using multi-lectin affinity chromatography and quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Specific lectins (AAL, PHA-L and PHA-E) were used to target and chromatographically separate core-fucosylated and highly-branched protein glycoforms for analysis, as differential expression of these glycan types have been previously associated with PCa. Global levels of CD5L, CFP, C8A, BST1, and C7 were significantly increased in the PCa samples. Notable glycoform-specific alterations between BPH and PCa were identified among proteins CD163, C4A, and ATRN in the PHA-L/E fraction and among C4BPB and AZGP1 glycoforms in the AAL fraction. Despite these modest differences, substantial similarities in glycoproteomic profiles were observed between PCa and BPH sera

Naturopathic Physician Attitudes and Practices for Vaccination and Primary Care in the State of Vermont

Introduction: Recent increase in measles cases has sparked vaccination controversy. Naturopathic physicians (NDs) have been recognized as primary care providers by VT since 2012. It is not well understood how NDs address vaccination with patients. Our goal was to determine how Vermont NDs address vaccines and preventative care with their patients.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1234/thumbnail.jp

Key issues in the process of implementing shared decision making (DM) in mental health practice

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Shulamit Ramon, Helen Brooks, Sarah Rae, Mary-Jane O’Sullivan, "Key issues in the process of implementing shared decision making (DM) in mental health practice", Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 22(3):257-274, July 2017. The Version of Record is available online at doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-01-2017-0006 © Emerald Publishing Limited 2017.Purpose: This review paper will look at internationally existing publications in the English language on mental health shared decision making (SDM) implementation of a variety of interventions, including different methodologies and research methods, age groups and countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of: process, degree and outcomes of implementation; barriers and facilitators; perspectives on implementation by different stakeholders; analysis of the process of implementation in mental health services through the lenses of the normalisation process theory (NPT). Design/methodology/approach: Following a targeted literature search the data were analysed in order to provide an overview of methodologies and methods applied in the articles, as well as of the variables listed above. Three different types of information were included: a content analysis of key issues, reflective understanding coming out of participating in implementation of an SDM project in the form of two narratives written by two key participants in an SDM pilot project and an NPT analysis of the process of implementation. Findings: Only a minority of mental health SDM research focuses on implementation in everyday practice. It is possible and often desirable to achieve SDM in mental health services; it requires a low level of technology, it can save time once routinized, and it is based on enhancing therapeutic alliance, as well as service users' motivation. Implementation requires an explicit policy decision, a clear procedure, and regular adherence to the aims and methods of implementation by all participants. These necessary and sufficient conditions are rarely met, due to the different levels of commitment to SDM and its process by the different key stakeholders, as well as due to competing providers' objectives and the time allocated to achieving them. Originality/value: The review indicates both the need to take into account the complexity of SDM, as well as future strategies for enhancing its implementation in everyday mental health practice. Perhaps because applying SDM reflects a major cultural change in mental health practice, current value attached to SDM among clinicians and service managers would need to be more positive, prominent and enduring to enable a greater degree of implementation.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

High throughput sequencing in acute lymphoblastic leukemia reveals clonal architecture of central nervous system and bone marrow compartments

No abstract available

Cities, The Sharing Economy and What's Next

This report seeks to provide an analysis of what is currently happening in American cities so that city leaders may better understand, encourage and regulate the growing sharing economy. Interviews were conducted with city officials on the impact of the sharing economy and related topics, and the report centers around five key themes: innovation, economic development, equity, safety and implementation.The sharing economy is also commonly referred to as collaborative consumption, the collaborative economy, or the peer-to-peer economy. This term refers to business models that enable providers and consumers to share resources and services, from housing to vehicles and more. These business models typically take the form of an online and/or application-based platform for business transactions