Clinical Reasoning: An encephalopathic 3-day-old infant.

Univeristy of California San Francisco, Department of Neurology, Division of Child Neurology, Box 0114, 505 Parnassus Ave., M-798, San Francisco, CA 94143-0114, USA.
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.29). 07/2011; 77(1):e1-5. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182231407
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Hannah C Glass, Feb 13, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To design and construct a urinary bladder bioreactor for urologic tissue-engineering purposes and to compare the viability and proliferative activity of cell-seeded extracellular matrix scaffolds cultured in the bioreactor with conventional static growth conditions. A urinary bladder bioreactor was designed and constructed to replicate physiologic bladder dynamics. The bioreactor mimicked the filling pressures of the human bladder by way of a cyclical low-delivery pressure regulator. In addition, cell growth was evaluated by culturing human urothelial cells (UCs) on porcine extracellular matrix scaffolds in the bioreactor and in static growth conditions for 5 consecutive days. The attachment, viability, and proliferative potential were assessed and compared with quantitative viability indicators and by fluorescent markers for intracellular esterase activity and plasma membrane integrity. Scaffold integrity was characterized with scanning electron microscopy and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining. No significant difference in cell viability was identified between both experimental groups after 3 days of culture (P = .06). By day 4, the number of viable UCs was significantly greater in the bioreactor compared with the number cultured under static conditions (P = .009). A significant difference in UC viability was also present after 5 days of culture between the bioreactor and static group (P = .006). Viability/cytotoxicity assays performed on day 5 also confirmed the viability of UCs in both experimental groups. Significantly greater UC growth occurred on the extracellular matrix scaffolds cultured in the bioreactor compared with conventional static laboratory conditions after 3 days of culture. Our initial bioreactor prototype might be helpful for permitting additional advances in urinary bladder bioreactor technology.
    Urology 10/2011; 78(4):954-60. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.036 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review provides up-to-date information on the anticancer properties of Monascus-fermented products. Topics covered include clinical evidence for the anticancer potential of Monascus metabolites, bioactive Monascus components with anticancer potential, mechanisms of the anticancer effects of Monascus metabolites, and existing problems as well as future perspectives. With the advancement of related fields, the development of novel anticancer Monascus food products and/or pharmaceuticals will be possible with the ultimate goal of decreasing the incidence and mortality of malignancies in humans.
    Anti-cancer drugs 03/2014; 25(7):735-744. DOI:10.1097/CAD.0000000000000102 · 1.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many aspects of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment could be greatly advanced with new, effective biomarkers. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has multiple weaknesses as a biomarker, such as not distinguishing well between cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia or between indolent and aggressive cancers, thus leading to overtreatment, especially unnecessary biopsies. PSA also often fails to indicate accurately which patients are responding to a given treatment. Yet PSA is the only prostate cancer biomarker routinely used by urologists. Here, we provide updated information on the most relevant of the other biomarkers currently in use or in development for prostate cancer. Recent research shows improvement over using PSA alone by comparing total PSA (tPSA) or free PSA (fPSA) with new, related markers, such as prostate cancer antigen (PCA) 3, the individual molecular forms of PSA (proPSA, benign PSA, and intact PSA), and kallikreins other than PSA. Promising results have also been seen with the use of the fusion gene TMPRSS2:ERG and with various forms of the urokinase plasminogen activation receptor. Initially, there were high hopes for early PCA, but those data were not reproducible and thus research on early PCA has been abandoned. Much work remains to be done before any of these biomarkers are fully validated and accepted. Currently, the only markers discussed in this paper with Food and Drug Administration-approved tests are PCA 3 and an isoform of proPSA, [-2]proPSA. Assays are in development for most of the other biomarkers described in this paper. While the biomarker validation process can be long and filled with obstacles, the rewards will be great—in terms of both patient care and costs to the health care system.
    Urologic Oncology 04/2014; 32(3). DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.09.017 · 2.77 Impact Factor