Category Archives: Molecular Medicine

We discussed challenges to initiate and maintain researcheradvocate relationships, and proposed short- and long-term solutions (Table 1):

The first challenge is that it is not clear why patient advocates should be included in research. Sometimes researchers feel that their work is too far removed from the patient or that the patient advocate may not be able to provide anything valuable to the research. There are plenty of resources that describe the value of these relationships, but more can be done to ensure the value is demonstrated8,12,13.

In the short-term, anecdotal stories can support researchers realization of the value of working with patient advocates. Groups that require patient advocate involvement for funding, such as the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, should supply clear, public statements describing the benefit of including patient advocates in the research process. All disease-related research funding groups should encourage or require patient advocate input and involvement in grant projects, both to support writing the project plan and as part of developing the hypothesis, designing the project, and supporting dissemination of the findings. Researchers should ensure that they avoid engaging in performative advocacy (having a token advocate) through clear and frequent communication with the patient advocate. Performative advocacy is when patient advocates are included in research discussions to fulfill a requirement by simply saying a patient advocate was present, rather than listening to the patient advocates suggestions and incorporating their feedback into the study.

In the long-term, it would help to initiate a research project whose goal is to evaluate the added benefit of researchers working with patient advocates. This type of work should consider endpoints such as funding, publications, and overall satisfaction with work. Additionally, clinical endpoints may also improve and thus should be measured including translation to the clinic and engagement of diverse populations in related trials.

The second challenge is that researchers are worried about saying the wrong thing. During the panel discussions, one researcher said, its intimidating. I dont want to fail the patients. I want what Im doing to be meaningful. Some researchers fear working with a patient advocate in case they want a cure or have unrealistic expectations of how quickly (or how slowly) the research is going to move, which may feed into the researchers concern of failure. Metastatic disease is currently not curable, and many (but not all) patients will have limited time to live, and thus many researchers fear that they will say something that is insensitive given this challenging situation.

Open lines of communication are extremely important as they establish expectations from the start that everyone is learning from each other and ensure the environment is a safe space. Both groups should feel that they can ask questions they may feel like others know the answer to. They should also feel comfortable respectfully correcting others within their own areas of expertise. Our discussions noted that scientists have not historically been trained to communicate with nonscientists, but there is increasing recognition of this shortcoming, and current trainees will hopefully reap the benefits of increased attention to this matter13,14.

There is a need for training programs in which researchers learn how to work with patient advocates. This could be a workshop at a conference or annual retreat, or part of a class about communication. Conferences like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting, the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), and the Metastasis Research Society (MRS) Biennial Congress should consider including training sessions on best practices for working with patient advocates at their events.

The third challenge is that researchers do not know where to meet patient advocates. Initially, connecting with patient advocates can be challenging for researchers. It can happen through a variety of venues, though, through formal programs like those at Georgetown University8 and Huntsman Cancer Institute or informally through forums like Twitter by following #BCSM and other cancer-specific social media tags.

In the short-term, researchers should review established advocate programs to determine if they would benefit from initiating similar programs at their institutions. Georgetown University and Huntsman programs are examples where patient advocates meet regularly to support research at their respective cancer centers by providing a forum for researchers to explain their work and meet new patient advocates. Patient advocates could be invited to annual retreats to give those who do not normally work with advocates a chance to establish collaborations. Kansas University developed a researcher/patient advocate toolkit called PIVOT (Patient and Investigator Voices Organizing Together) AdvocateResearcher Working Together Toolkit15, which provides additional best practices for establishing relationships. The National Cancer Institute Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) grants are structured to bring basic research to a Phase I Trial and SPORE applications are required to include advocates.

There are scientific conferences that support patient advocate participation and interaction with researchers such as the Metastatic Breast Cancer Research Conference and AACRs ScientistSurvivor Program. Additionally, an organization run by patient advocates called Guiding Researchers and Advocates to Scientific Partnerships (GRASP) fosters patient advocate and researcher interactions through poster discussions at conferences. Conferences also benefit from facilitating opportunities for patient advocates and research scientists to have formal interactions through panel discussions and informal interactions like coffee chats or happy hours.

In the long-term, it would be beneficial to develop a national database for researchers and patient advocates to connect that includes the persons interests, location, and time commitment. Groups like GRASP have already started this type of database that includes hundreds of patient advocates and researchers. It would be helpful if this database were turned into a tool or phone app that connects researchers and patient advocates through a series of questions similar to something like match.com. Developers should work towards being inclusive of research on multiple cancer types and consider piloting the tool or app in a specific region to optimize it before opening it up nationwide.

The final challenge is that researchers do not know how to include patient advocates in research. Once a researcher has met a patient advocate, they may not know how to continue to include the patient voice in their work. It is extremely important to establish open lines of communication as groundwork for collaboration, and ensure patient advocates are appropriately compensated. Both researchers and patient advocates should establish their expectations when starting to work together. It is important to understand whether the collaboration will be a short- or long-term engagement and both parties should consider time commitments with regard to frequency of meetings as well as the length of meetings.

Ideally, researchers should begin working with patient advocates early in their career16. To support these relationships, institutions should build programs to support that connection. A few examples of success include:

Cornell Community Cancer Partnership: Cornell has developed a program that brings community members affected by, or interested in, cancer together with basic research Ph.D. students16. They have monthly seminars where graduate students give presentations in common language or community members describe their experiences living with cancer17. The program focuses on science communication and exposing trainees to the human side of cancer.

Cancer Trainee Advocate Program (CTAP): This program is a resource for how to get trainee programs started at institutions and provides a few examples. The goal is to bring patient advocates from the community together with trainees to have initial discussions about experiences with cancer and their research, respectively.

Cellular and Molecular Basis of Disease Course in the Cellular and Molecular Medicine Ph.D. Program at Johns Hopkins University: During the first year of graduate study, M.D. or Ph.D. faculty members present lectures on human diseases and often bring in a patient to share their perspective. These studentpatient interactions are described by students as a highlight of their educational experience.

There are many other examples, both at the national and local level9. Once relationships are established, researchers should create a process for maintaining collaboration. Patient advocates enjoy being involved with every step of the research process and including advocates throughout the grant writing process avoids performative advocacy. Researchers should consider patient advocates involvement in grants early in the process, not only to support the merit of the grant in the review process, but as a true partner as the grant progresses. This likely involves including them in the budget and/or as a co-author on publications, as appropriate. Having a long-term relationship supports the organic process of patient advocate involvement, which allows time for advocates to become partners in research as the project progresses. A few suggestions for long-standing collaboration are included in Table 2.

It is important for researchers to consider ways to compensate patient advocates for their time, which may include paying for service, covering travel, or inclusion in a manuscript. Researchers should discuss compensation with patient advocates but understand that there are complexities such as the impacts of receiving disability benefits. The field would benefit from more comprehensive discussions and guidance regarding compensation for patient advocates, including intricacies, appropriate amounts, where funding for advocates comes from.

In the long-term, it would help to have clearer definitions of roles for patient advocates receiving compensation or providing effort in grant applications and research projects. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) should consider explaining how advocacy fits into their NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center designation rubric to more clearly demonstrate the value these relationships bring to cancer centers. There is a potential opportunity to include patient advocates in the context of community outreach and engagement (COE). Laying out expectations of researchers working with patient advocates, as well as the purpose for the interactions, would be a great benefit to the community and improve cancer research overall.

In conclusion, our analysis identified two major barriers to research scientist working with patient advocates. The first is that research scientists do not know how to initiate the relationship and the second is that they are unsure of what the relationship should look like. For cancer researchers, we have highlighted ways to collaborate with patient advocates and outlined examples of established best practices from multiple institutions, a resource that has not been comprehensively outlined before. We hope this document will inspire new relationships and programs as we move towards ensuring the patient voice is considered along the continuum of research. While focused, our discussions were not quantitative in nature. To support implementation of programs, academic centers would likely benefit from a more quantitative description of the approach and outcomes. Future studies should collect detailed demographics and expand the group to diverse demographic groups, especially with respect to gender, age, income, and race. Ultimately, these relationships will improve cancer research and more quickly accomplish our collective goal of improving lives of those who have been diagnosed with cancer. We recommend this relationship would be incorporated as part of the infrastructure of the basic research in cancers.

See the original post:
Improving the odds together: a framework for breast cancer research scientists to include patient advocates in their research | npj Breast Cancer -...

More than 426,000 people have signed a petition against the end of free testing kits, which has now been delivered to Downing Street

Covid rates in the UK have surged recently - due to the BA.4 and BA.5 variants - leading to campaigners calling for free tests to return.

Dr John Puntis, co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public and lead of the petition, said the recent rise of Covid cases made the petition to bring back free lateral flow tests even more relevant.

He said that although there are fewer cases of serious illness and death from Covid, there are still 3.7 million people in England classed as clinically extremely vulnerable from Covid.

He added that more than two million people in England who have had long Covid often live with the devastating effects on their quality of life and ability to work.

Dr Puntis said the petition sends a strong message to Prime Minister Boris Johnson that there is much more to be done and that living with Covid has to be a lot more than just vaccination.

It must include widespread testing, free lateral flow tests, sick pay and support for self-isolation, mask wearing in crowded indoors, flexible working, and clean air through improved ventilation systems. It is time to put public health at the heart of our response to Covid, Dr Puntis added.

Martin Michaelis, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Kent, also agreed that free testing for Covid needs to be made publicly available on a widespread basis again.

He said if the spread of Covid is to be reduced then people need to know whether they are infected and may infect others.

Without tests, nobody can know whether they carry the virus or not, he added.

Prof Michaelis said that due to the high level of pre-existing immunity - which is down to vaccinations and previous infections - many people do not experience symptoms when they are infected with Covid.

He added that even those who do have symptoms cannot know with certainty whether they have Covid or another respiratory infection.

Many people will therefore unknowingly spread Covid if they do not have an easy opportunity to test themselves, he added.

He also said that although many people have a high level of immune protection from Covid, there is a significant proportion of the population whose immune system is not working properly and who cannot protect themselves by vaccination.

These people are put at a much higher risk when the Covid levels are high in the population, said Prof Michaelis.

Since people can only avoid spreading the virus when they know that they have it, free testing is an important measure that reduces Covid spread and, in turn, the risk of future devastating Covid waves, he added.

Read more from the original source:
Should Covid tests be free again? Thousands sign petition as cases surge in UK - NationalWorld

The recent experience of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing vaccine development have drawn our attention to the system that keeps us alive: immunity. However, our immune system does more than fight against microbes. The new textbook Molecular Immunology: How Science Works by Professor Carsten Carlberg and Dr Eunike Velleuer provides an essential background in molecular immunology. This includes the basic principles and underlying processes of immunity against bacteria and viruses, immune responses to cell and organ transplants, the overboarding immune activation in allergies and autoimmune reactions, as well as the way how a properly functioning immune system protects us against cancer.

Understanding these mechanisms will highlight that a fight against viruses uses the same mechanisms as the battle against thousands of transformed cancer cells arising every day in each of us, the authors remark.

Our immune system is composed of biological structures like the lymphatic system and bone marrow, as well as cellular immunity mediated by cell types such as leukocytes and humoral immunity mediated by proteins such as antibodies and complement proteins. The perfect balance of these components protects us against infectious diseases and cancer. Molecular immunology aims to understand the collective and coordinated response of these cells and proteins to substances that are foreign to our body. The main purpose of this immune response is the fight against microbes, such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites. However, the example of allergic reactions, which nowadays are getting continuously more common, demonstrates that also non-microbial molecules can induce a strong reaction of our immune system. Moreover, incorrect reactions of the immune system can lead to autoimmune diseases, such as type I diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Immune responses can cause tissue injuries that are more harmful than the effects of pathogenic microbes. These collateral damages may be even fatal, such as in the case of bacterial sepsis or strong responses to SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The different chapters of the book explain the cellular basis of immunology, the key molecules mediating the effector functions of B and T cells, and how molecular immunology is associated with infections caused by bacteria and viruses, organ transplantation, allergy and autoimmunity as well as different types of cancers.

We hope that readers will enjoy this rather visual book and get as enthusiastic as the authors about life and its protection reflected in the fine-tuned molecular immunology.

Molecular Immunology: How Science Works is the fifth textbook in the series How Science Works co-authored by Professor Carlberg. The earlier books in the undergraduate book series are Cancer Biology: How Science Works, Mechanisms of Gene Regulation: How Science Works, Human Epigenetics: How Science Works and Nutrigenomics: How Science Works. They are linked to the lecture courses in Molecular Immunology, Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Cancer Biology and Nutrigenomics given by Professor Carlberg at the University of Eastern Finland in Kuopio. The book series now covers each lecture course.

Carsten Carlberg graduated in 1989 with a PhD in biochemistry at the Free University Berlin. After positions as postdoc at Roche in Basel, group leader at the University of Geneva and docent at the University of Dsseldorf, he is since 2000 full professor of biochemistry at the University of Eastern Finland in Kuopio. His work focuses on the mechanisms of gene regulation by nuclear hormones, in particular on vitamin D. At present, Professor Carlbergs projects focus on the epigenome-wide effects of vitamin D on the human immune system in the context of cancer.

Eunike Velleuer graduated in 2006 as MD at the University of Dsseldorf and specialized in 2016 in pediatric hemato-oncology. At present, she serves as senior physician at the Helios Childrens Clinic Krefeld as well as a research associate at the University of Dsseldorf. Her special clinical focus is the cancer predisposition syndrome Fanconi anemia. Herein, her research interest is early detection and prevention of oral squamous cell carcinoma and identifying patients with Fanconi anemia at risk. Furthermore, Dr. Velleuer is interested in increasing patients resilience and finding alternative ways for long-lasting empowerment.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Read more from the original source:
New textbook addresses the timely topic of molecular immunology - EurekAlert

People are exposed to low-dose radiation in many ways: having a CT scan, working as a medical technician or in a nuclear power plant, or living in an area contaminated by radiation. The health effects of these low-dose exposures are not well understood but a revitalized research program could change that.

Decades of research have revealed a number of adverse health effects that have occurred in individuals exposed to high doses of radiation, with most of this work focused on cancer. Much less is understood about the effects of low doses experienced by millions of Americans, although there is increasing evidence of its links to cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders, immune dysfunction, and cataracts, as well as cancer. These possible connections raise questions as to whether the public and workers are adequately protected by current radiation standards and regulations.

We and a group of colleagues working in radiation biology, dosimetry, epidemiology, biotechnology, economics, biostatistics, environmental health, and other disciplines released a report in early June detailing the limitations in whats known about the health effects of exposure to low-dose radiation. This group, assembled by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine at the request of Congress, presented a plan to revitalize low-dose radiation research in the U.S., which has stalled in recent years, including how this research could be coordinated, its essential elements, and high-priority areas needed to fill in some of the knowledge gaps.

advertisement

The first step we recommend is to ensure adequate funding for this important work. The $5 million appropriated for the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) low-dose radiation program in 2021 and 2022 is not sufficient even to get a research program off the ground, let alone fund the research itself. But with adequate funding, we estimate the DOE could implement a revitalized, strategic research program within just two years.

Significant investments over a sustained period spanning more than a decade will be required, with an estimated cost of about $100 million a year for the next 15 years. This funding would help establish a structure for research, fund competitive proposals in epidemiological and biological research, support engagement with affected communities, and train and retain a new generation of radiation scientists across a range of disciplines.

advertisement

One critical finding of the report is that a revitalized low-dose research program would be able to leverage recent development in other fields, such as increased understanding of the cellular and molecular processes that enable development of human adverse health effects; new epidemiological methods and databases; and powerful new biological, measurement, and computational tools that previous researchers did not have at their disposal.

Epidemiological research can take advantage of increasingly accessible electronic databases and information on disease presence and severity from the internet of medical things, as well as more precise molecular classification of human diseases, and improved estimates of radiation doses, among other advances. These approaches could also aid in identifying factors such as inherited genetic variants or lifestyles that can modify the risks of low-dose radiation exposure.

Biological research can exploit new abilities to manipulate cells, tissues, and animals to understand how biological responses change with the level of exposure; to directly measure cellular and molecular changes resulting from exposure to low dose radiation; and to establish causal links to radiation exposure. The use of advanced measurement tools could help reveal the mechanisms that control biological responses to low-dose radiation.

Join Mohana Ravindranath, STAT's health tech correspondent, on June 29 at 1:00 p.m. ET to examine how technologies like telemedicine and big data may help doctors reach patients who currently dont get high-quality care.

We believe this research requires a long-term federal commitment, because the effects of low-dose radiation may take years or decades to manifest themselves. It will also take time to build and sustain a community of radiation effects experts who will be available to assist in the management and mitigation of the health effects of radiation exposures.

To be successful, any federal office leading the program will need to be dedicated to scientific independence, transparency, and stakeholder participation. This is especially important as science seeks to provide answers to concerned individuals and to communities that have been involuntarily exposed to radiation: indigenous communities, veterans exposed to radiation during military operations, nuclear workers, and others affected by the legacy of U.S. nuclear weapons testing and production. These communities had a strong voice in our report, and we learned how essential trust and meaningful involvement in research is to them.

Our committee also acknowledged concerns from communities affected by low-dose radiation regarding the Department of Energys leadership of low-dose radiation research, such as its conflicts of interest due to its work with the nuclear weapons program and promoting nuclear energy. While our committee was specifically asked to develop a research program led by DOE, our report notes that both it and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have historically supported radiation research. While the DOEs Office of Science has de-prioritized this research in recent years, the NIHs health research capabilities are well established, and the NIH is widely trusted by the scientific community and has no perceived conflicts of interest regarding radiation research from the public.

Our report is clear: If a revitalized low-dose research program moves forward under DOE leadership, its performance should be independently evaluated. If the agencys management of the program falls short, other agencies, including the NIH, should be considered to lead the program instead.

An opportunity exists to greatly expand the understanding of how low-dose radiation exposure affects health. A federally-coordinated program will provide valuable information, and reveal whether current regulations and protections are adequate to keep Americans safe from the effects of low-dose radiation. Now is the time to revitalize this research.

Joe Gray is a professor emeritus at the Oregon Health and Science University and University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicines Committee on Developing a Long-Term Strategy for the Low-Dose Radiation Research in the United States. Lindsay Morton is a senior investigator and deputy chief of the Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at the National Cancer Institute, and a member of the committee. Gayle Woloschak is a professor of radiation oncology at Northwestern University in Chicago, adjunct professor of religion and science at Lutheran School of Theology Chicago and at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and a member of the committee.

Link:
The U.S. needs to revitalize research on the health effects of low-dose radiation - STAT

First published in the June 16 print issue of the Outlook Valley Sun.

Every day for work, Dr. Matthew Lew returns to where it all began.His office, the rare private family practice, is based on the campus of Adventist Health Glendale, where he and his siblings were all born. That practice, Lew Medical, was founded by his father, Dr. Edmund Lew, with whom Matthew Lew has partnered to lead and eventually take over the business.By his own admission, father did not influence son, at least not deliberately, in picking family medicine as a specialty. However, its clear that the La Caada Flintridge men were cut from the same cloth.It seems like an overused term, treating the whole person, but in fact, my orientation to dealing with a problem really kind of takes into account all of the different issues that people would have, how they relate to it psychologically, all the different systems as they relate to one another, Edmund Lew said in an interview this week. It just seemed to make sense to me that if I was going to be a healer of some sort that I would have to take into account how the body works together but separately in its own system. Treating the whole person seemed to be the best way to help people and resolve their issues.

Plus, he added, I like everything, so it was difficult to actually choose a specialty.Similarly, Matthew Lew found value in seeking a broad, holistic treatment of people. As an undergraduate student at Brigham Young University, he took two years off to embark on a proselyting mission in Guatemala for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Matthew Lew said based on his enjoyment of helping others find spiritual awakenings, he felt he would equally relish healing of the body as well.Family medicine it was, then.I love talking to people. I love meeting new people, and its a great way to just meet a whole different bunch of people, Matthew Lew explained. My patients have great and very interesting backgrounds, which is really cool, and I just love interacting with them. In medical school, I kind of liked everything except for delivering babies, he admitted so family medicine is one way to do everything. It was nice not to be restricted, like if I was in a specialty.Matthew Lew, a graduate of La Caada High School, ultimately earned his bachelors degree in molecular biology from BYU and then earned his medical degree from American University in the Caribbean. He was chief resident of the family medicine program while completing his residency at Eisenhower Health in Rancho Mirage.Edmund Lew, who was raised in Silver Lake, graduated from Loyola High School and later earned his bachelors degree in psychology from the University of San Francisco. He then earned his medical degree from Chicago Medical School and did his three-year residency at then-Glendale Adventist Medical Center during which his son was born at the hospital.After he finished medical school, Matthew Lew joined his father at Lew Medical in August 2019.I feel like everyones always asking me, like, How is working with dad? trying to get some inside scoop or good stories, he said. We get along really well. We see each other on the weekends, with our families. Its kind of a boring relationship a good relationship.His father chimed in, with a light chuckle: We dont close the doors, put on the gloves and duke it out.The Lews are both determined to keep alive their unique practice, which in spite of being located at the Adventist Health campus remains independent of the hospital and, to hear them say it, is among the few such private family practices around anymore.Either theyre being bought out by big groups or by hospitals, so its a very different dynamic, Matthew Lew explained. I feel like its rural medicine in the suburbs, because we kind of do everything. We see our patients in the hospital. We see them in the office. We see them in skilled nursing facilities, assisted living, et cetera.We make house calls as well, Edmund Lew added. Most people think, who makes house calls anymore?

Back to Matthew Lew: Its a dying practice, that old school medicine.There just is much to be gained with treating patients where they are and where theyre at, with whatever condition they have, Edmund Lew elaborated. Were going to continue that concept because it really is the best for the patient. That approach allows us to keep patients out of emergency rooms and out of hospitals. Theyre able to contact us at home early on so we can prevent them from having complications of whatever condition they have.Matthew Lew, now married and himself a father of three, still lives in LCF, his youngest now at La Caada Elementary School. They live five minutes from his parents Five minutes including strapping them in the car, Edmund Lew quipped and its an arrangement all are pleased with. Their proximity and work arrangement allowed Edmund Lew to take a recent two-week trip to Africa, and he plans on returning the favor when Matthew Lew and his family vacation in Hawaii soon.Its funny. You grow up in an area and you always want to get out and go somewhere else, right? Well, you go somewhere else, and you look back and start getting in the next phase of your life, like Hey, I want to raise a family, wheres a good place to raise a family? Matthew Lew recalled. A lot of people reminisce about their hometown and thats what I did. I always had a plan of coming back and working here anyway, so it kind of worked out.Edmund Lew, only 68 and not retiring anytime soon, said he is nonetheless preparing his son to fully inherit the practice. He said he is influenced by his own father, who owned a dry cleaner and employed 30, when it comes to running the business and managing his employees like an extension of his own family.Still, Matthew Lew may have to wait a while.With Gods help and with treating myself well working out five days a week, trying to eat well, keeping myself in decent shape I dont know anything else that I would do in retirement that would be as rewarding as what Im doing now, Edmund Lew said. Gardening, I can only do for a little while. Traveling, you can only do for a little while.Soon, their family medicine practice will add even greater emphasis on family. Matthews younger brother is currently studying to be a registered nurse and will embark on family nurse practitioner school this fall.When hes done there, he has a job waiting for him.

See the article here:
It's All in the Family for Father-Son Doctors Outlook Valley Sun - outlookvalleysun.outlooknewspapers.com

The threat of infectious diseases is a reminder about the importance of the global community and global health care, say McMaster researchers Zain Chagla and Karen Mossman.

The threat of infectious diseases is a reminder about the importance of the global community and global health care, says infectious disease specialist Zain Chagla.

Chagla, an associate professor of medicine, was interviewed on TVOs The Agenda about monkeypox.

It is not a new virus, but transmission had previously been focused primarily in West and Central Africa. In the last month and a half, however, there have been a slew of new cases where people acquired it without the epidemiologic and travel links to that part of the world.

There is probably one set of events that occurred either within West and Central Africa or with people from that region in another area of the world that then transmitted to a different network of individuals which is now transmitting in other networks of individuals all over the world, Chagla explained.

Most of the transmission is from short-range and intimate close contact. That includes skin-to-skin contact and contact with open sores, especially when people are going through the pox phase, as the virus is incredibly present within those lesions, he said.

Most people develop symptoms within a week or two, with one to five days of feeling unwell, Chagla said.

Then theres the appearance of the characteristic rash, which often starts out as flat, red areas that start getting raised and then fill with fluid. These can be anywhere on the body.

That said, some newer cases do not fit the typical pattern of symptoms and may be misdiagnosed. This is why testing and understanding where cases are spreading is key, he told CBC News.

You do want to make sure that testing is very broad until were able to link contacts more and more, and that we know where cases are coming from more and more, because at this point it doesnt seem like it.

Most cases that have been described in the last month and a half have been very mild, with most people not requiring hospitalization to make the diagnosis or help with isolation, he said.

With monkeypox coming on the heels of more than two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chagla said there are important lessons to learn as we deal with this and other infectious diseases that are sure to come.

Part of our efforts moving forward from this pandemic is recognizing global health as a global community, he explained on TVO, adding partnerships between high- and low-income countries are vital for sharing research, knowledge and medicine.

We are a global community and health across both animal and human species is important and is going to be a very fundamental investment moving forward for the entirety of our world.

There are also lessons in terms of public health messaging, especially as the cases of monkeypox in Canada have been concentrated in men between 20 and 63-years-old. Most of them had sexual contact with other men.

I think this does start the discussion about really making sure that positive, non-stigmatizing, non-discriminatory efforts are put forward first and foremost and that we embrace communities in a positive public health approach, Chagla said.

We need the public as a stakeholder as we move forward in pandemics. We do have to think about the consequences of more punitive measures as they may lose public trust. We need the public back as to help deal with other emerging infectious disease threats.

Its a sentiment echoed by Karen Mossman, virologist and professor of pathology and molecular medicine.

I think there needs to be a balance between transparency and awareness, with reality based on the best available data and knowledge. The public has a right to be aware of what viruses are circulating, and could potentially form a new outbreak, Mossman told CBC News.

This is where it gets challenging, as we often dont know what we dont know, and as we gather more information, those messages change. We absolutely experienced this during COVID, explained Mossman, who is McMasters vice-president of Research.

By using the adage of Trust me, Im a doctor, we arent doing our job in really educating the public of why and how decisions/recommendations are made, which I think is critically important so that when the next pandemic happens, the public has a general awareness and can better understand what is happening, why, and should they be concerned or not.

Read the original post:
Monkeypox and COVID show the need for global health efforts: Experts weigh in - Brighter World

Scientists have discovered that themolecular profiling of diseased joint tissue may considerably influence whether certain drug treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients will work.

According to a new study from the Queen Mary University of London, molecular profiling of diseased joint tissue might greatly impact whether certain drug treatments will be effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine on May 19th, 2022. The researchers also found certain genes related to resistance to most present drug therapies, often known as refractory disease, which might give the key to finding new, effective medicines to assist these patients.

While there has been substantial improvement in treating arthritis over the last decades, a large proportion of individuals (about 40%) do not respond to particular drug treatments, and 5-20% of persons with the condition are resistant to all existing kinds of medicine.

The researchers conducted a biopsy-based clinical study with 164 arthritis patients, testing their reactions to rituximab or tocilizumab two medications routinely used to treat RA. The original trials findings, published in The Lancet in 2021, showed that in individuals with a low synovial B-cell molecular signature, just 12% reacted to a treatment that targets B cells (rituximab), whereas 50% responded to an alternate medication (tocilizumab). Both medications were equally effective when patients had high amounts of this genetic signature.

As part of the first-of-its-kind study, funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership, the Queen Mary team also looked at the cases where patients did not respond to treatment via any of the drugs and found that there were 1,277 genes that were unique to them specifically.

Building on this, the researchers applied a data analysis technique called machine learning models to develop computer algorithms that could predict drug responses in individual patients. The machine learning algorithms, which included gene profiling from biopsies, performed considerably better at predicting which treatment would work best compared to a model which used only tissue pathology or clinical factors.

The study strongly supports the case for performing gene profiling of biopsies from arthritic joints before prescribing expensive so-called biologic targeted therapies. This could save the NHS and society considerable time and money and help avoid potential unwanted side effects, joint damage, and worse outcomes that are common among patients. As well as influencing treatment prescription, such testing could also shed light on which people may not respond to any of the current drugs on the market, emphasizing the need for developing alternative medications.

Professor Costantino Pitzalis, Versus Arthritis Professor of Rheumatology at the Queen Mary University of London, said: Incorporating molecular information prior to prescribing arthritis treatments to patients could forever change the way we treat the condition. Patients would benefit from a personalized approach that has a far greater chance of success, rather than the trial-and-error drug prescription that is currently the norm.

These results are incredibly exciting in demonstrating the potential at our fingertips, however, the field is still in its infancy and additional confirmatory studies will be required to fully realize the promise of precision medicine in RA.

The results are also important in finding solutions for those people who unfortunately dont have a treatment that helps them presently. Knowing which specific molecular profiles impact this, and which pathways continue to drive disease activity in these patients, can help in developing new drugs to bring better results and much-needed relief from pain and suffering.

The incorporation of these signatures in future diagnostic tests will be a necessary step to translate these findings into routine clinical care.

Reference: Rituximab versus tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: synovial biopsy-based biomarker analysis of the phase 4 R4RA randomized trial by Felice Rivellese, Anna E. A. Surace, Katriona Goldmann, Elisabetta Sciacca, Cankut ubuk, Giovanni Giorli, Christopher R. John, Alessandra Nerviani, Liliane Fossati-Jimack, Georgina Thorborn, Manzoor Ahmed, Edoardo Prediletto, Sarah E. Church, Briana M. Hudson, Sarah E. Warren, Paul M. McKeigue, Frances Humby, Michele Bombardieri, Michael R. Barnes, Myles J. Lewis, Costantino Pitzalis, and the R4RA collaborative group, 19 May 2022, Nature Medicine.DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01789-0

Original post:
Genes Can Predict the Success of Arthritis Treatment - SciTechDaily

HiLIFE Helsinki Institute of Life Science is one of the leading life science research institutes in the Nordics. It fosters outstanding research and generation of innovations across the University of Helsinki campuses and Faculties to create an attractive international environment where todays grand challenges in health and environment are solved together. In HiLIFE, we believe that breakthroughs emerge by giving talented researchers sufficient resources and freedom to pursue their ambitions and expertise towards higher goals.

HiLIFE tenure track program aims to attract the most talented and motivated individuals. In the previous two calls HiLIFE has recruited 10 assistant/associate professors, who to date have been able to achieve 6 ERC grants during their years at the University of Helsinki.

We are now recruiting

three TENURE TRACK ASSISTANT / ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS

to join this excellent crowd. The HiLIFE tenure track positions start 2023 at the earliest and are initially for three to five years with a possibility for promotion and tenuring following successful evaluation. The aim is to recruit three scientists, but additional places may be available in collaboration with HiLIFE operational units.

The positions are shared between one of the HiLIFE units (Institute of Biotechnology, Neuroscience Center and Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM)) and one of the participating life science faculties in Viikki, Meilahti and Kumpula campuses. We encourage applicants from all fields of life science to apply. The faculties participate in the call and encourage applications especially from the following fields:

Position requirements

We seek talented candidates with a doctorate degree, post-doctoral experience, and recent demonstration of excellence in research in life sciences according to career stage. We build on scientific excellence; a suitable candidate has for example already produced early-career scientific track record, attracted funding, and is now ready to start working independently. The successful candidate shows potential to be a future research leader, and is expected to develop an independent externally funded line of research in current or emerging areas of life sciences. We are looking for individuals also capable of contributing to the development of life science infrastructures and/or higher education in evolving areas of life sciences. Early-stage independent researchers are especially encouraged to apply.

For formal qualifications, please see https://www.helsinki.fi/en/about-us/careers/academic-careers/tenure-track. The degree requirement must be met by the end of the application deadline.

What we offer

Want to work in the worlds happiest country in a dynamic and international institute? Finland has been nominated as the happiest country in the world four times in a row. https://media.visitfinland.com/en/media-press-releases/five-ultimate-reasons-travel-finland-happiest-country/

The positions come with an attractive negotiable startup package, and are initially for three to five years with a possibility for extension or tenuring following successful evaluation. All positions are shared between HiLIFE units and one of the participating faculties. Contracts during the tenure track are with HiLIFE and following tenuring at the faculty. The salary is negotiable within the framework of the University of Helsinki regulations.

HiLIFE takes a proactive and transformative role in ensuring that our institute is the best place for everyone to conduct their work. Our Code of Conduct translates the University of Helsinki values and principles into practical guidelines that define how we behave and wish to be treated with zero tolerance against inappropriate behavior, bullying, harassment, or discrimination.

Application & recruitment process

Applications are submitted as a single pdf attachment via the link at the bottom of the page. On the separate attached pdf, the applicant includes the following:

Applications are submitted by August 25, 2022.

Evaluation of applications is carried out by an Appointment Committee and includes external referee statements and interviews of shortlisted applicants. Finalists must successfully complete an interview process that includes a research seminar and teaching demonstration. The interviews are expected to take place on January 9 11, 2023. The recruitment is expected to be completed in March 2023.

Further information

https://www.helsinki.fi/en/hilife-helsinki-institute-life-science/call-hilife-tenure-track-assistantassociate-professor-positions

HiLIFE director Olli Silvennoinen, tel:+358 50 359 5740 , e-mail: olli.j.silvennoinen@helsinki.fi

Human Resources Partner Anu Roine, tel: +358 50 556 0633, e-mail: anu.roine@helsinki.fi (out of office June 24 July 31)

Head of Administration Jonna Katajisto, tel: +358 50 415 1096, e-mail: jonna.katajisto@helsinki.fi (out of office July 11 - 22 and August 15 ->)

In case you need support with the recruitment portal, please contact recruitment@helsinki.fi

HiLIFE

Life Science research in at the University of Helsinki covers broad scope from structure, function and dynamics of molecules, microbes and cells to entire organisms and ecosystems. Multiple units at all four Universitys campuses, but mainly Viikki and Meilahti, host life science researchers. HiLIFE was established in 2017 to bridge over Universitys units and campuses and thus build even more vibrant life science community.

HiLIFE contains the Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, Institute of Biotechnology (BI) and Neuroscience Center (NC). These units play an important role in developing a strong international research environment in their focus areas and bring important expertise to HiLIFE in recruitment, training, core facilities, innovation, and international cooperation. HiLIFE also takes responsibility of cross-campus needs and the development in the Life Science area. This dual role makes HiLIFE a unique entity in the University.

HiLIFE employs more than 650 diverse scientists and support staff. With about 50% international staff the daily working language is English. HiLIFEs budget exceeds 60 M of which about 65% is external competed research funding. HiLIFE hosts about 80 principal investigators including multiple ERC grantees. Measured by CNCI (Category Normalized Citation Impact 2017-2020) HiLIFE is the top research unit at the University. It is also forerunner in the open publishing.

Whats life like as a HiLIFE assistant / associate professor?Watchthe story of one of our tenure track professors and hear what she has discovered during her years in Helsinki.

Curious to know more about HiLIFE or the assistant/associate professor positions? https://www.helsinki.fi/en/hilife-helsinki-institute-life-science

University of Helsinki & Finland

The University of Helsinki welcomes applicants from a variety of genders, linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and minorities. HiLIFE employs more than 650 diverse scientists and support staff. With about 50 % of international staff the daily working language is English.

The University of Helsinki is a vibrant and international scientific community of 40 000 students and researchers. It is one of the leading multidisciplinary research universities in Europe and ranks among the top 100 international universities in the world. Through the power of science, the University has contributed to society, education, and welfare since 1640. The University of Helsinki is currently investing heavily in life sciences research. UH offers comprehensive services to its employees, including occupational health care and health insurance, sports facilities, and opportunities for professional development.

Our vision 2030 is to be one of the worlds leading universities that generates understanding through research and teaching for the benefit of the global community. Everyday activities and interaction are founded on the shared values of truth, Bildung, freedom and inclusivity. Our research and teaching draw inspiration from four themes that spur collaboration between fields and disciplines and renew research and learning: A meaningful life, human wellbeing and a healthy environment; A humane and fair world; A sustainable and viable future for our globe; and A universe of ideas and opportunities.

Finland is a member of the EU, has high quality free schooling (also in English), generous family benefits and healthcare, and was recently ranked as the best country in the world for expat families and in the worlds top ten most liveable cities. Finland and the Helsinki region possess top expertise in sciences in terms of a vibrant talent pool, leading research, strong support services and functioning collaboration networks. For more information about working at the University of Helsinki and living in Finland, please see https://www.helsinki.fi/en/about-us/careers.

Go here to see the original:
HiLIFE Tenure Track Assistant / Associate Professor Position job with UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI | 297858 - Times Higher Education

June 21, 2022 Krystle W. Glasgow, MIS, CNMT, NMTCB(CT), NMAA, FSNMMI-TS, instructor and clinical coordinator at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in Birmingham, Alabama, has been elected as the 2022-23 president for the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Technologist Section (SNMMI-TS). The new slate of officers was introduced during the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imagings 2022 Annual Meeting held June 11-14.

Retaining and increasing membership in SNMMI-TS is Glasgows top priority as Technologist Section president. We have had great momentum in the past year in bringing in more members to our great society, said Glasgow. As president, I will continue working to engage with technologists and build excitement for our field.

Glasgow also plans to strengthen the societys support for nuclear medicine technologists through enhanced communication and educational offerings. By making SNMMI-TS a one-stop shop for technologists, Glasgow hopes that more technologists will take advantage of all of the opportunities offered by the society.

Glasgow received her Bachelor of Sciencedegree in nuclear medicine technology with a concentration in computed tomography in 2010 from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She completed her Masters of Imaging Science degree and was certified as a Nuclear Medicine Advanced Associate at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, Arkansas. Currently, Glasgow is pursuing her doctorate degree in health services administration with a concentration in health informatics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

An active member of the SNMMI-TS, Glasgow was president-elect for the Technologist Section from 2021-22. She serves on the SNMMI-TS Membership, Finance and Publications committees. She has been a member and chair of numerous task forces and working groups, including the SNMMI-TS Executive Board,UptakeNewsletter Editorial Board, Nuclear Medicine Week Working Group, Women in Nuclear Medicine Committee, Advocacy Committee and more. She is also an article reviewer for theJournal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

Glasgow, an SNMMI-TS fellow, is an SNMMI-TS 2016 Leadership Academy graduate as well as a 2021 Advanced Leadership Academy graduate. She was the 2018 American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Kleiner Award winner and has been awarded several grants from SNMMI-TS. Glasgow has also contributed to several books and has published four journal articles.

The SNMMI Technologist Section president-elect for 2022-23 is Dmitry Beyder, CNMT, MPA, St. Louis, Missouri. Elected to leadership of SNMMI for 2022-23 were Munir Ghesani, MD, FACNM, FACR, New York, New York, as president; Helen Nadel, MD, FRCPC, Stanford, California, as president-elect; and Cathy Sue Cutler, PhD, FSNMMI, Upton, New York, as vice president-elect.

For more information:www.snmmi.org

See the original post:
SNMMI Announces President of the Technologist Section During 2022 Annual Meeting - Imaging Technology News

A team of University of Tennessee Health Science Center researchers has been awarded $2.19 million from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for their investigation of the neurotoxic effects of toluene, a common chemical found in many household products.

Alex M. Dopico, MD, Van Vleet Chair of Excellence and professor in the Department of Pharmacology, Addiction Science, and Toxicology (PHAST) in the College of Medicine, and Anna N. Bukiya, PhD, professor in the same department, are principal investigators on the award. Jeff Steketee, PhD, also a professor in the PHAST Department and chair of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, is a co-investigator.

Toluene reaches the brain through inhalation. Intoxication with toluene, whether accidental or following recreational use (e.g., glue sniffing), leads to dizziness, blurred vision and even neurological deficits with catastrophic outcomes, including death. A reduction in blood flow to the brain is thought to contribute to these toxic effects, but how and why toluene exposure affects the brain circulation is not known.

The team hypothesizes that toluene reduces the activity of a protein (the BK channel) located in the cerebral artery muscle cells, causing the brain arteries to constrict upon exposure. Performing tests at the molecular level using computational methods, and in vitro and in vivo evaluation of BK channel function in animal models, the team aims to identify the specific mechanism and site of action in BK channels that makes cerebral arteries constrict in the presence of toluene. Their tests will include delivering new selective drug therapies for early intervention in toluene-induced brain ischemia.

The project, titled Ionic mechanisms of toluene cerebrovascular actions, is being funded over five years.

Related

See the original post here:
UTHSC Team Receives $2.19 Million To Study Neurotoxicity of Commonly-Used Chemical Solvent - UTHSC News - UTHSC News