Zobrazení zdroje stránky Kilgoreklavsen7958

The culture of differentiated human airway epithelial cells allows the study of pathogen-host interactions and innate immune responses in a physiologically relevant in vitro model. As the use of primary cell culture has gained popularity the availability of the reagents needed to generate these cultures has increased. In this study we assessed two different media, Promocell and PneumaCult, during the differentiation and maintenance of well-differentiated primary nasal epithelial cell cultures (WD-PNECs). We compared and contrasted the consequences of these media on WD-PNEC morphological and physiological characteristics and their responses to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We found that cultures generated using PneumaCult resulted in greater total numbers of smaller, tightly packed, pseudostratified cells. However, cultures from both media resulted in similar proportions of ciliated and goblet cells. There were no differences in RSV growth kinetics, although more ciliated cells were infected in the PneumaCult cultures. There was also significantly more IL-29/IFNλ1 secreted from PneumaCult compared to Promocell cultures following infection. In conclusion, the type of medium used for the differentiation of primary human airway epithelial cells may impact experimental results.BACKGROUND Tumor cells with a mesenchymal phenotype and/or cancer stem-like cells (CSCs) are known to contribute to metastasis and drug resistance. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) undergoing epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and CTCs reflecting a dedifferentiated CSC phenotype may not be detected using only an anti-EpCAM antibody to capture them. We used an antibody-independent CTC enrichment platform, ApoStream®, which does not rely on any antibody, including anti-EpCAM, to capture EMT- and CSC-CTCs in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and correlated them to pathological complete response (pCR). METHODS Blood samples from newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were prospectively collected before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (T0), after chemotherapy but before surgery (T1), and after surgery (T2) and processed using ApoStream. CTCs detected were stained with additional markers to define 3 CTC subsets with the following phenotypes epithelial CTCs (CK+, EpCAM+ or E-cadherin+), EMT-CTCs (β-catenin+ or vimentin+), and CSC-CTCs (CD44+ and CD24low). RESULTS We enrolled 55 patients, 47 of which had data for analysis. EMT-CTCs were detected in 57%, 62%, and 72% and CSC-CTCs in 9%, 22%, and 19% at the T0, T1, and T2 time points, respectively. Counts of epithelial (P = 0.225) and EMT (P = 0.522) phenotypes of CTCs at T0 did not significantly predict pCR. Moreover, no correlation between CTC count change and pCR was demonstrated. [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/etomoxir-na-salt.html Etomoxir price] CONCLUSIONS ApoStream was successful in detecting EMT-CTCs among patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, EMT-/CSC-CTC counts did not correlate with pCR. Due to the small sample size and heterogeneity of this patient population, further study in a larger cohort of molecularly homogeneous patients is warranted.Cannabis related online searches are associated with positive attitudes toward medical cannabis, particularly when information is obtained from dispensaries. Since pain is the main reason for medicinal cannabis use, information from dispensary websites has the potential to shape the attitude of pain patients towards cannabis. This is relevant because cannabis has demonstrated efficacy in neuropathic pain with low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations (15% THC (70.3% - 91.4% of products). These stated concentrations seem unsuitable for medicinal purposes, particularly for patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Therefore, this information could induce the misconception that high potency cannabis is safe to treat pain. This data is consistent with reports in which THC and CBD in products from legal dispensaries or in nationwide products from the illegal market were actually measured, which indicates that patients consuming these products may be at risk of acute intoxication or long-term side effects. Our study offers grounds to develop policies that help prevent misconceptions toward cannabis and reduce risks in pain patients.Chart review is an important tool to identify patient hazards. Most advanced medical students perform poorly during chart review but can learn how to identify patient hazards context-independently. Many hospitals have implemented electronic health records, which enhance patient safety but also pose challenges. We investigated whether electronic charts impair advanced medical students' recognition of patient hazards compared with traditional paper charts. Fifth-year medical students were randomized into two equal groups. Both groups attended a lecture on patient hazards and a training session on handling electronic health records. One group reviewed an electronic chart with 12 standardized patient hazards and then reviewed another case in a paper chart; the other group reviewed the charts in reverse order. The two case scenarios (diabetes and gastrointestinal bleeding) were used as the first and second case equally often. After each case, the students were briefed about the patient safety hazards. In total, 78.5% of the students handed in their notes for evaluation. Two blinded raters independently assessed the number of patient hazards addressed in the students' notes. For the diabetes case, the students identified a median of 4.0 hazards [25%-75% quantiles (Q25-Q75) 2.0-5.5] in the electronic chart and 5.0 hazards (Q25-Q75 3.0-6.75) in the paper chart (equivalence testing, p = 0.005). For the gastrointestinal bleeding case, the students identified a median of 5.0 hazards (Q25-Q75 4.0-6.0) in the electronic chart and 5.0 hazards (Q25-Q75 3.0-6.0) in the paper chart (equivalence testing, p less then 0.001). We detected no improvement between the first case [median 5.0 (Q25-Q75 3.0-6.0)] and second case [median, 5.0 (Q25-Q75 3.0-6.0); p less then 0.001, test for equivalence]. Electronic charts do not seem to facilitate advanced medical students' recognition of patient hazards during chart review and may impair expertise formation.