Cre recombinase residue Arg259 mediates a canonical bidentate hydrogen-bonded contact with Gua27 of its LoxP DNA substrate. Substituting Cyt8-Gua27 with the three other basepairs, to give LoxAT, LoxTA, and LoxGC, reduced Cre-mediated recombination in vitro, with the preference order of Gua27 > Ade27 approximately Thy27 >> Cyt27. While LoxAT and LoxTA exhibited 2.5-fold reduced affinity and 2.5-5-fold slower reaction rates, LoxGC was a barely functional substrate. Its maximum level of turnover was 6-fold reduced over other substrates, and it exhibited 8.5-fold reduced Cre binding and 6.3-fold slower turnover rate. With LoxP, the rate-limiting step for recombination occurs after protein-DNA complex assembly but before completion of the first strand exchange to form the Holliday junction (HJ) intermediate. With the mutant substrates, it occurs after HJ formation. Using an increased DNA-binding E262Q/E266Q "CreQQ" variant, all four substrates react more readily, but with much less difference between them, and maintained the earlier rate-limiting step. The data indicate that Cre discriminates substrates through differences in (i) concentration dependence of active complex assembly, (ii) turnover rate, and (iii) maximum yield of product at saturation, all of which are functions of the Cre-DNA binding interaction. CreQQ suppression of Lox mutant defects implies that coupling between binding and turnover involves a change in Cre subunit DNA affinities during the "conformational switch" that occurs prior to the second strand exchange. These results provide an example of how a DNA-binding enzyme can exert specificity via affinity modulation of conformational transitions that occur along its reaction pathway.

Purpose

The objectives of the study were to compare MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in the same patients concerning image quality and visualization of cartilage pathology and to assess diagnostic performance using arthroscopy as a standard of reference.

Materials and methods

Twenty-six patients were identified retrospectively as having comparative 1.5 and 3.0 T MR studies of the knee within an average of 102 days. Standard protocols included T1-weighted and fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in three planes; sequence parameters had been adjusted to account for differences in relaxation at 3.0 T. Arthroscopy was performed in 19 patients. Four radiologists reviewed each study independently, scored image quality, and analyzed pathological findings. Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in diagnosing cartilage lesions were calculated in the 19 patients with arthroscopy, and differences between 1.5 and 3.0 T exams were compared using paired Student's t tests with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.

Results

Each radiologist scored the 3.0 T studies higher than those obtained at 1.5 T in visualizing anatomical structures and abnormalities (p < 0.05). Using arthroscopy as a standard of reference, diagnosis of cartilage abnormalities was improved at 3.0 T with higher sensitivity (75.7% versus 70.6%), accuracy (88.2% versus 86.4%), and correct grading of cartilage lesions (51.3% versus 42.9%). Diagnostic confidence scores were higher at 3.0 than 1.5 T (p < 0.05) and signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was approximately twofold higher than at 1.5 T.

Conclusion

MRI at 3.0 T improved visualization of anatomical structures and improved diagnostic confidence compared to 1.5 T. This resulted in significantly better sensitivity and grading of cartilage lesions at the knee.

The objectives of the study were to compare MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in the same patients concerning image quality and visualization of cartilage pathology and to assess diagnostic performance using arthroscopy as a standard of reference. Twenty-six patients were identified retrospectively as having comparative 1.5 and 3.0 T MR studies of the knee within an average of 102 days. Standard protocols included T1-weighted and fat-saturated intermediate-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in three planes; sequence parameters had been adjusted to account for differences in relaxation at 3.0 T. Arthroscopy was performed in 19 patients. Four radiologists reviewed each study independently, scored image quality, and analyzed pathological findings. Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies in diagnosing cartilage lesions were calculated in the 19 patients with arthroscopy, and differences between 1.5 and 3.0 T exams were compared using paired Student’s t tests with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Each radiologist scored the 3.0 T studies higher than those obtained at 1.5 T in visualizing anatomical structures and abnormalities (p < 0.05). Using arthroscopy as a standard of reference, diagnosis of cartilage abnormalities was improved at 3.0 T with higher sensitivity (75.7% versus 70.6%), accuracy (88.2% versus 86.4%), and correct grading of cartilage lesions (51.3% versus 42.9%). Diagnostic confidence scores were higher at 3.0 than 1.5 T (p < 0.05) and signal-to-noise ratio at 3.0 T was approximately twofold higher than at 1.5 T. MRI at 3.0 T improved visualization of anatomical structures and improved diagnostic confidence compared to 1.5 T. This resulted in significantly better sensitivity and grading of cartilage lesions at the knee.

It is well established that diabetes mellitus accelerates atherosclerotic vascular disease. Endothelial injury has been proposed to be the initial event in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Endothelium not only acts as a semi-selective barrier but also serves physiological and metabolic functions. Diabetes or high glucose in circulation triggers a series of intracellular responses and organ damage such as endothelial dysfunction and apoptosis. One such response is high glucose-induced chronic endoplasmic reticulum stress in the endothelium. The unfolded protein response is an acute reaction that enables cells to overcome endoplasmic reticulum stress. However, when chronically persistent, endoplasmic reticulum stress response could ultimately lead to endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. Herein, we discuss the scientific advances in understanding endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced endothelial dysfunction, the pathogenesis of diabetes-accelerated atherosclerosis and endoplasmic reticulum stress as a potential target in therapies for diabetic atherosclerosis.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.