A Genome-Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 73, Heft 1, S. 271-286
ISSN: 0022-3816
85 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 73, Heft 1, S. 271-286
ISSN: 0022-3816
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted a public workshop entitled "Advancing Animal Models for Antibacterial Drug Development" on 5 March 2020. The workshop mainly focused on models of pneumonia caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii. The program included discussions from academic investigators, industry, and U.S. government scientists. The potential use of mouse, rabbit, and pig models for antibacterial drug development was presented and discussed.
BASE
The general consensus among sport and exercise genetics researchers is that genetic tests have no role to play in talent identification or the individualised prescription of training to maximise performance. Despite the lack of evidence, recent years have witnessed the rise of an emerging market of direct-to-consumer marketing (DTC) tests that claim to be able to identify children's athletic talents. Targeted consumers include mainly coaches and parents. There is concern among the scientific community that the current level of knowledge is being misrepresented for commercial purposes. There remains a lack of universally accepted guidelines and legislation for DTC testing in relation to all forms of genetic testing and not just for talent identification. There is concern over the lack of clarity of information over which specific genes or variants are being tested and the almost universal lack of appropriate genetic counselling for the interpretation of the genetic data to consumers. Furthermore independent studies have identified issues relating to quality control by DTC laboratories with different results being reported from samples from the same individual. Consequently, in the current state of knowledge, no child or young athlete should be exposed to DTC genetic testing to define or alter training or for talent identification aimed at selecting gifted children or adolescents. Large scale collaborative projects, may help to develop a stronger scientific foundation on these issues in the future.
BASE
Acknowledgments and Disclosures: This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Strategic Award (104036/Z/14/Z). The Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council provided core support for Generation Scotland. GS:SFHS was funded by a grant from the Scottish Government Health Department, Chief Scientist Office (CZD/16/6). We are grateful to the families who took part in GS:SFHS, the general practitioners and Scottish School of Primary Care for their help in recruiting them, and the whole Generation Scotland team, which includes academic researchers, clinic staff members, laboratory technicians, clerical workers, information technology staff members, statisticians, and research managers. AMM has previously received grant support from Pfizer, Lilly, and Janssen. These studies are not connected to the current investigation. YZ acknowledges support from the China Scholarship Council. T-KC and AMM acknowledge with gratitude the financial support received for this work from the Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation. PAT, DJP, IJD, and AMM are members of the University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, part of the cross-council Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Initiative (MR/K026992/1). Funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Medical Research Council (MRC) is gratefully acknowledged. DJM is an NHS Research Scotland (NRS) Fellow, funded by the Chief Scientist Office. PN and CSH acknowledge support from the MRC. All other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest. GS:SFHS data are available to researchers on application to the Generation Scotland Access Committee (access: http://generationscotland.org). The managed access process ensures that approval is granted only to research that comes under the terms of participant consent. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
BASE
To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Files ; Schizophrenia is a debilitating psychiatric condition often associated with poor quality of life and decreased life expectancy. Lack of progress in improving treatment outcomes has been attributed to limited knowledge of the underlying biology, although large-scale genomic studies have begun to provide insights. We report a new genome-wide association study of schizophrenia (11,260 cases and 24,542 controls), and through meta-analysis with existing data we identify 50 novel associated loci and 145 loci in total. Through integrating genomic fine-mapping with brain expression and chromosome conformation data, we identify candidate causal genes within 33 loci. We also show for the first time that the common variant association signal is highly enriched among genes that are under strong selective pressures. These findings provide new insights into the biology and genetic architecture of schizophrenia, highlight the importance of mutation-intolerant genes and suggest a mechanism by which common risk variants persist in the population. ; European Union's Seventh Framework Programme Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre European Community's Seventh Framework Programme German Research Foundation (DFG) Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF) of the medical faculty of Munster National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Agencia Estatal de Investigacion (AEI) Xunta de Galicia Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) Lundbeck Foundation Stanley Medical Research Institute, an advanced grant from the European Research Council Danish Strategic Research Council Aarhus University Wellcome Trust Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) European Union National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) programme Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish government Health Directorates Scottish Funding Council National Institute of ...
BASE
The PGC was funded by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Grant Nos. MH085520 (to PFS) and MH080403. Statistical analyses were carried out on the Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org) hosted by SURFsara and financially supported by the Netherlands Scientific Organization Grant No. NWO 480-05-003 (to D. Posthuma) and the department of Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam along with a supplement from the Dutch Brain Foundation. The Bonn/Mannheim GWAS was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the Integrated Genome Research Network Systematic Investigation of the Molecular Causes of Major Mood Disorders and Schizophrenia Grant Nos. 01GS08144 and 01GS08147, under the auspices of the National Genome Research Network plus, and through the Integrated Network Integrated Understanding of Causes and Mechanisms in Mental Disorders, under the auspices of the e:Med Programme Grant Nos. 01ZX1314A and 01ZX1314G. The Bonn/Mannheim GWAS was also supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) Grant Nos. FOR2107, RI908/11-1, and NO246/10-1. The GenRED GWAS project was supported by NIMH R01 Grant Nos. MH061686 (to DFL), MH059542 (to W.H. Coryell), MH075131 (W.B. Lawson), MH059552 (JBP), MH059541 (W.A. Scheftner), and MH060912 (MMW). Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry MARS study was supported by the BMBF Program Molecular Diagnostics: Validation of Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Outcome in Major Depression by Grant No. 01ES0811. Genotyping was supported by the Bavarian Ministry of Commerce, and the BMBF in the framework of the National Genome Research Network by Grant Nos. NGFN2 and NGFN-Plus, FKZ 01GS0481 and 01GS08145. The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety and the Netherlands Twin Register contributed to Genetic Association Information Network (GAIN)-MDD and to MDD2000. Funding for NTR/NESDA was from the following: the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (MagW/ZonMW Grant Nos. 904-61-090, 985-10- 002, 904-61-193, 480-04-004, 400-05-717, 912-100-20; Spinozapremie Grant No. 56-464-14192; Geestkracht program Grant No. 10-000-1002); the Center for Medical Systems Biology (NWO Genomics), Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure, Vrije Universiteit's Institutes for Health and Care Research and Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, BIC/BioAssist/RK (Grant No. 2008.024); the European Science Foundation (Grant No. EU/QLRT-2001-01254); the European Community's Seventh Framework Program (Grant No. FP7/2007-2013); ENGAGE (Grant No. HEALTH-F4-2007-201413); and the European Science Council (Grant No. ERC 230374). Genotyping was funded in part by the GAIN of the Foundation for the US National Institutes of Health, and analysis was supported by grants from GAIN and the NIMH (Grant No. MH081802). Funding for the QIMR samples was provided by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant Nos. 241944, 339462, 389927, 389875, 389891, 389892, 389938, 442915, 442981, 496675, 496739, 552485, 552498, 613602, 613608, 613674, 619667), the Australian Research Council (Grant Nos. FT0991360, FT0991022), the FP-5 GenomEUtwin Project (Grant No. QLG2-CT-2002-01254), and the US National Institutes of Health (Grant Nos. AA07535, AA10248, AA13320, AA13321, AA13326, AA14041, MH66206, DA12854, DA019951), and the Center for Inherited Disease Research (Baltimore, MD). RADIANT was funded by the following: a joint grant from the UK Medical Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline (Grant No. G0701420); the National Institute for Health Research Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London; the UK Medical Research Council (Grant No. G0000647), and the Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnership and Pathways (Grant No. 286213). The GENDEP study was funded by a European Commission Framework 6 grant (EC Contract Ref.: LSHB-CT-2003-503428). Genotyping of STAR*D was supported by NIMH Grant No. MH072802 (to SPH). STAR*D was funded by NIMH Grant No. N01MH90003 to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas (to A.J. Rush). The CoLaus/PsyCoLaus study was supported by research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, the Faculty of Biology and Medicine of Lausanne, and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 3200B0–105993, 3200B0-118308, 33CSCO-122661, 33CS30-139468, 33CS30-148401) and two grants from GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Genetics. SHIP is part of the Community Medicine Research net of the University of Greifswald, Germany, which is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant Nos. 01ZZ9603, 01ZZ0103, 01ZZ0403), the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, and the Social Ministry of the Federal State of Mecklenburg–West Pomerania. Genome-wide data have been supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 03ZIK012) and a joint grant from Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany, and the Federal State of Mecklenburg–West Pomerania. SHIP-LEGEND is funded by the DFG (Grant No. GR 1912/5-1). The TwinGene study was supported by the Swedish Ministry for Higher Education, the Swedish Research Council (Grant No. M-2005-1112), GenomEUtwin (Grant Nos. EU/QLRT-2001-01254, QLG2-CT-2002-01254), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research and the US National Institutes of Health (Grant No. U01 DK066134). The collection of PRISME control subjects and genotyping of the 883 Danish control subjects was supported by grants from The Danish Strategic Research Council, The Stanley Research Foundation, and H. Lundbeck A/S. The Muenster Depression cohorts were supported by the European Union (Grant No. N Health-F2-2008-222963) and by grants from the DFG (Grant Nos. FOR 2107 and DA1151/5-1 [to UD]), Innovative Medizinische Forschung of the Medical Faculty of Mu¨nster (Grant Nos. DA120903, DA111107, and DA211012 [all to UD]). Generation Scotland is supported by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award "Stratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally" (Reference No.: 104036/Z/14/Z) and core support from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (Grant No. CZD/16/6) and the Scottish Funding Council (Grant No. HR03006). Supplementary material cited in this article is available online at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.05.010. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
BASE
In: Journal of Eating Disorders--2050-2974 Vol. 10 Issue. 1 No. 31
Background Eating disorders (EDs) are highly complex mental illnesses associated with significant medical complications. There are currently knowledge gaps in research relating to the epidemiology, aetiology, treatment, burden, and outcomes of eating disorders. To clearly identify and begin addressing the major deficits in the scientific, medical, and clinical understanding of these mental illnesses, the Australian Government Department of Health in 2019 funded the InsideOut Institute (IOI) to develop the Australian Eating Disorder Research and Translation Strategy, the primary aim of which was to identify priorities and targets for building research capacity and outputs. A series of rapid reviews (RR) were conducted to map the current state of knowledge, identify evidence gaps, and inform development of the national research strategy. Published peer-reviewed literature on DSM-5 listed EDs, across eight knowledge domains was reviewed: (1) population, prevalence, disease burden, Quality of Life in Western developed countries; (2) risk factors; (3) co-occurring conditions and medical complications; (4) screening and diagnosis; (5) prevention and early intervention; (6) psychotherapies and relapse prevention; (7) models of care; (8) pharmacotherapies, alternative and adjunctive therapies; and (9) outcomes (including mortality). While RRs are systematic in nature, they are distinct from systematic reviews in their aim to gather evidence in a timely manner to support decision-making on urgent or high-priority health concerns at the national level. Results Three medical science databases were searched as the primary source of literature for the RRs: Science Direct, PubMed and OVID (Medline). The search was completed on 31st May 2021 (spanning January 2009-May 2021). At writing, a total of 1,320 articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Conclusions For each RR, the evidence has been organised to review the knowledge area and identify gaps for further research and investment. The series of RRs (published separately within the current series) are designed to support the development of research and translation practice in the field of EDs. They highlight areas for investment and investigation, and provide researchers, service planners and providers, and research funders rapid access to quality current evidence, which has been synthesised and organised to assist decision-making.
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE