Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Participatory Research (PR) entails the co-governance of research by academic researchers and end-users. End-users are those who are affected by issues under study (<it>e.g.</it>, community groups or populations affected by illness), or those positioned to act on the knowledge generated by research (<it>e.g.</it>, clinicians, community leaders, health managers, patients, and policy makers). Systematic reviews assessing the generalizable benefits of PR must address: the diversity of research topics, methods, and intervention designs that involve a PR approach; varying degrees of end-user involvement in research co-governance, both within and between projects; and the complexity of outcomes arising from long-term partnerships.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We addressed the above mentioned challenges by adapting realist review methodology to PR assessment, specifically by developing inductively-driven identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures. This approach allowed us to address the non-uniformity and complexity of the PR literature. Each stage of the review involved two independent reviewers and followed a reproducible, systematic coding and retention procedure. Retained studies were completed participatory health interventions, demonstrated high levels of participation by non-academic stakeholders (<it>i.e.</it>, excluding studies in which end-users were not involved in co-governing throughout the stages of research) and contained detailed descriptions of the participatory process and context. Retained sets are being mapped and analyzed using realist review methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The librarian-guided search string yielded 7,167 citations. A total of 594 citations were retained after the identification process. Eighty-three papers remained after selection. Principle Investigators (PIs) were contacted to solicit all companion papers. Twenty-three sets of papers (23 PR studies), comprising 276 publications, passed appraisal and are being synthesized using realist review methods.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The systematic and stage-based procedure addressed challenges to PR assessment and generated our robust understanding of complex and heterogeneous PR practices. To date, realist reviews have focussed on evaluations of relatively uniform interventions. In contrast our PR search yielded a wide diversity of partnerships and research topics. We therefore developed tools to achieve conceptual clarity on the PR field, as a beneficial precursor to our theoretically-driven synthesis using realist methods. Findings from the ongoing review will be provided in forthcoming publications.</p

Physiologic and molecular consequences of endothelial Bmpr2 mutation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is thought to be driven by dysfunction of pulmonary vascular microendothelial cells (PMVEC). Most hereditary PAH is associated with BMPR2 mutations. However, the physiologic and molecular consequences of expression of BMPR2 mutations in PMVEC are unknown.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In vivo experiments were performed on adult mice with conditional endothelial-specific expression of the truncation mutation Bmpr2^delx4+, with age-matched transactivator-only mice as controls. Phenotype was assessed by RVSP, counts of muscularized vessels and proliferating cells, and staining for thromboses, inflammatory cells, and apoptotic cells. The effects of BMPR2 knockdown in PMVEC by siRNA on rates of apoptosis were assessed. Affymetrix expression arrays were performed on PMVEC isolated and cultured from triple transgenic mice carrying the immortomouse gene, a transactivator, and either control, Bmpr2^delx4+or Bmpr2^R899Xmutation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Transgenic mice showed increased RVSP and corresponding muscularization of small vessels, with histologic alterations including thrombosis, increased inflammatory cells, increased proliferating cells, and a moderate increase in apoptotic cells. Expression arrays showed alterations in specific pathways consistent with the histologic changes. Bmpr2^delx4+and Bmpr2^R899Xmutations resulted in very similar alterations in proliferation, apoptosis, metabolism, and adhesion; Bmpr2^delx4+cells showed upregulation of platelet adhesion genes and cytokines not seen in Bmpr2^R899XPMVEC. Bmpr2 mutation in PMVEC does not cause a loss of differentiation markers as was seen with Bmpr2 mutation in smooth muscle cells.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Bmpr2 mutation in PMVEC <it>in vivo </it>may drive PAH through multiple, potentially independent, downstream mechanisms, including proliferation, apoptosis, inflammation, and thrombosis.</p

Temporal order of clinical and biomarker changes in familial frontotemporal dementia

Data availability: The datasets analyzed for the current study reflect collaborative efforts of two research consortia: ALLFTD and GENFI. Each consortium provides clinical data access based on established policies for data use: processes for request are available for review at allftd.org/data for ALLFTD data and by emailing [email protected]. Certain data elements from both consortia (for example raw MRI images) may be restricted due to the potential for identifiability in the context of the sensitive nature of the genetic data. The deidentified combined dataset will be available for request through the FTD Prevention Initiative in 2023 (https://www.thefpi.org/).Code availability: Custom R code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6687486.Copyright © The Author(s). Unlike familial Alzheimer’s disease, we have been unable to accurately predict symptom onset in presymptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) mutation carriers, which is a major hurdle to designing disease prevention trials. We developed multimodal models for f-FTD disease progression and estimated clinical trial sample sizes in C9orf72, GRN and MAPT mutation carriers. Models included longitudinal clinical and neuropsychological scores, regional brain volumes and plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) in 796 carriers and 412 noncarrier controls. We found that the temporal ordering of clinical and biomarker progression differed by genotype. In prevention-trial simulations using model-based patient selection, atrophy and NfL were the best endpoints, whereas clinical measures were potential endpoints in early symptomatic trials. f-FTD prevention trials are feasible but will likely require global recruitment efforts. These disease progression models will facilitate the planning of f-FTD clinical trials, including the selection of optimal endpoints and enrollment criteria to maximize power to detect treatment effects.Data collection and dissemination of the data presented in this paper were supported by the ALLFTD Consortium (U19: AG063911, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke) and the former ARTFL and LEFFTDS Consortia (ARTFL: U54 NS092089, funded by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; LEFFTDS: U01 AG045390, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke). The manuscript was reviewed by the ALLFTD Executive Committee for scientific content. The authors acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the study participants and families as well as the assistance of the support staffs at each of the participating sites. This work is also supported by the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (including the FTD Biomarkers Initiative), the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, Larry L. Hillblom Foundation (2018-A-025-FEL (A.M.S.)), the National Institutes of Health (AG038791 (A.L.B.), AG032306 (H.J.R.), AG016976 (W.K.), AG062677 (Ron C. Peterson), AG019724 (B.L.M.), AG058233 (Suzee E. Lee), AG072122 (Walter Kukull), P30 AG062422 (B.L.M.), K12 HD001459 (N.G.), K23AG061253 (A.M.S.), AG062422 (RCP), K24AG045333 (H.J.R.)) and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. Samples from the National Centralized Repository for Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG021886 (T.F.)) awarded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were used in this study. This work was also supported by Medical Research Council UK GENFI grant MR/M023664/1 (J.D.R.), the Bluefield Project, the National Institute for Health Research including awards to Cambridge and UCL Biomedical Research Centres and a JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019–02248). Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurologic Diseases, project 739510. J.D.R. and L.L.R. are also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre Clinical Research Facility and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. J.D.R. is also supported by the Miriam Marks Brain Research UK Senior Fellowship and has received funding from an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). M.B. is supported by a Fellowship award from the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (AS-JF-19a-004-517). RC and C.G. are supported by a Frontotemporal Dementia Research Studentships in Memory of David Blechner funded through The National Brain Appeal (RCN 290173). J.B.R. is supported by NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care), the Wellcome Trust (220258), the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-plus and the Medical Research Council (SUAG/092 G116768); I.L.B. is supported by ANR-PRTS PREV-DemAls, PHRC PREDICT-PGRN, and several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases (project 739510). J.L. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 2145 SyNergy – ID 390857198). R.S.-V. was funded at the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (grant code PI20/00448 to RSV) and Fundació Marató TV3, Spain (grant code 20143810 to R.S.-V.). M.M. was, in part, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Italian Ministry of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of a Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration grant, by Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grants (MOP- 371851 and PJT-175242) and by funding from the Weston Brain Institute. R.L. is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Chaire de Recherche sur les Aphasies Primaires Progressives Fondation Famille Lemaire. C.G. is supported by the Swedish Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative Schörling Foundation, Swedish Research Council, JPND Prefrontals, 2015–02926,2018–02754, Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, Swedish Brain Foundation, Karolinska Institutet Doctoral Funding, KI Strat-Neuro, Swedish Dementia Foundation, and Stockholm County Council ALF/Region Stockholm. J.L. is supported by Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (German Research Foundation, EXC 2145 Synergy 390857198). The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK, Alzheimer’s Society, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre Clinical Research Facility and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer’s Research UK

Ubiquitin diGLY Proteomics as an Approach to Identify and Quantify the Ubiquitin-Modified Proteome

Protein ubiquitylation is one of the most prevalent posttranslational modifications (PTM) within cells. Ubiquitin modification of target lysine residues typically marks substrates for proteasome-dependent degradation. However, ubiquitylation can also alter protein function through modulation of protein complexes, localization, or activity, without impacting protein turnover. Taken together, ubiquitylation imparts critical regulatory control over nearly every cellular, physiological, and pathophysiological process. Affinity purification techniques coupled with quantitative mass spectrometry have been robust tools to identify PTMs on endogenous proteins. A peptide antibody-based affinity approach has been successfully utilized to enrich for and identify endogenously ubiquitylated proteins. These antibodies recognize the Lys-ϵ-Gly-Gly (diGLY) remnant that is generated following trypsin digestion of ubiquitylated proteins, and these peptides can then be identified by standard mass spectrometry approaches. This technique has led to the identification of &gt;50,000 ubiquitylation sites in human cells and quantitative information about how many of these sites are altered upon exposure to diverse proteotoxic stressors. In addition, the diGLY proteomics approach has led to the identification of specific ubiquitin ligase targets. Here we provide a detailed method to interrogate the ubiquitin-modified proteome from any eukaryotic organism or tissue