Citations

Background— Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the major cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although demographic and clinical factors associated with extent of CAD in patients with diabetes mellitus have been described, genetic factors have not. We hypothesized that genetic variation in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) pathway genes, important in diabetes mellitus and atherosclerosis, would be associated with extent of CAD in patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods and Results— We genotyped 1043 patients (702 white, 175 blacks) from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) genetic cohort for 3351 variants in 223 PPAR pathway genes using a custom targeted-genotyping array. Angiographic end points were determined by a core laboratory. In whites, a single variant (rs1503298) in TLL1 was significantly ( P =5.5×10 −6 ) associated with extent of CAD, defined as number of lesions with percent diameter stenosis ≥20%, after stringent Bonferroni correction for all 3351 single nucleotide polymorphisms. This association was validated in the diabetic subgroups of 2 independent cohorts, the Translational Research Investigating Underlying Disparities in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients' Health Status (TRIUMPH) post–myocardial infarction registry and the prospective Family Heart Study (FHS) of individuals at risk for CAD. TLL1 rs1503298 was also significantly associated with extent of severe CAD (≥70% diameter stenosis; P =3.7×10 −2 ) and myocardial jeopardy index ( P =8.7×10 −4 ). In general linear regression modeling, TLL1 rs1503298 explained more variance of extent of CAD than the previously determined clinical factors. Conclusions— We identified a variant in a single PPAR pathway gene, TLL1 , that is associated with the extent of CAD independently of clinical predictors, specifically in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CAD. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00006305.

The widespread use of actigraphy has led to the recognition that a number of methodological issues have to be addressed to facilitate an increased acceptability of this relatively new method. These methodological issues include actigraph placement, reliability, and sensitivity, and the phenomenon known as the “first night effect.” Our findings have demonstrated that actigraphy is a reliable instrument for assessment of sleep and wakefulness. In addition, actigraph placement and reliability do not constitute a significant methodological problem as no differences were found in all of these studies. We have also observed no first-night effects associated with sleep-wake monitoring with actigraphy.

Decades of empirical observations have established the validity of actigraphy primarily in individuals without sleep disorders. Methodological problems encountered thus far coupled with the widespread use of actigraphy signal the need for concentrated efforts to establish a consensus regarding scoring procedures. Currently available scoring methods show less reliability in clinical populations. To address these issues two validation studies were conducted: one for individuals without sleep disorders and the other for patients diagnosed with insomnia. The results of these two studies using the Actigraph Data Analysis Software as the scoring method have shown that the described system is fairly precise. It can be used for actigraphs with different features and mode of operation and is applicable to individuals with insomnia. These findings corroborate previous research showing that actigraphy is a valid instrument for assessment of sleep and wakefulness.

Abstract Triple-negative breast cancers are an aggressive subtype of breast cancer with poor survival, but there remains little known about the etiologic factors that promote its initiation and development. Commonly inherited breast cancer risk factors identified through genome-wide association studies display heterogeneity of effect among breast cancer subtypes as defined by the status of estrogen and progesterone receptors. In the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Consortium (TNBCC), 22 common breast cancer susceptibility variants were investigated in 2,980 Caucasian women with triple-negative breast cancer and 4,978 healthy controls. We identified six single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including rs2046210 (ESR1), rs12662670 (ESR1), rs3803662 (TOX3), rs999737 (RAD51L1), rs8170 (19p13.1), and rs8100241 (19p13.1), significantly associated with the risk of triple-negative breast cancer. Together, our results provide convincing evidence of genetic susceptibility for triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res; 71(19); 6240–9. ©2011 AACR.

BackgroundThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid β (Aβ)‐42, total‐tau (T‐tau), and phosphorylated‐tau (P‐tau) demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements between studies, and between and within laboratories. The Alzheimer's Association has initiated a global quality control program to estimate and monitor variability of measurements, quantify batch‐to‐batch assay variations, and identify sources of variability. In this article, we present the results from the first two rounds of the program.MethodsThe program is open for laboratories using commercially available kits for Aβ, T‐tau, or P‐tau. CSF samples (aliquots of pooled CSF) are sent for analysis several times a year from the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Mölndal campus of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Each round consists of three quality control samples.ResultsForty laboratories participated. Twenty‐six used INNOTEST enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay kits, 14 used Luminex xMAP with the INNO‐BIA AlzBio3 kit (both measure Aβ‐(1‐42), P‐tau(181P), and T‐tau), and 5 used Meso Scale Discovery with the Aβ triplex (AβN‐42, AβN‐40, and AβN‐38) or T‐tau kits. The total coefficients of variation between the laboratories were 13% to 36%. Five laboratories analyzed the samples six times on different occasions. Within‐laboratory precisions differed considerably between biomarkers within individual laboratories.ConclusionsMeasurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between‐laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. Standardization of laboratory procedures and efforts by kit vendors to increase kit performance might lower variability, and will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers.