-
Lim Rooney posted an update 6 months ago
To define applicant response to the 2021 Urology Residency Match Process in the COVID-19 Pandemic and to extrapolate lessons to optimize the urology resident selection process after the pandemic.
We emailed an anonymous, de-identified 22-question, multiple choice survey to all applicants to our institution for the 2021 Urology Residency Match, including a summary of the study with a survey link (RedCap).
Of the 398 survey recipients, 144 responded (36%). Even if the match process were not limited by COVID-19, 39% of applicants thought interviews should remain in virtual format, 23% said “no,” and 30% said “not sure.” Nearly all applicants (97%) thought all interview offers should be released on the same day. Regarding the early match, 84% thought this should remain. When asked what factors had the most impact on rank lists, faculty and resident interviews were overwhelmingly favored. Open houses and resident “happy hours” were less important. Barasertib research buy Most applicants agreed that the faculty and resident interviews and informational talks were adequately replicated on the virtual platform. A majority of applicants (65%) spent under $2000 for the application cycle.
The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urology match process. The faculty and resident interviews remained the most important factors in program ranking, and most applicants agreed those were adequately replicated in the virtual format. A plurality of applicants felt that the interview process should remain virtual in a post-COVID-19 environment. The virtual application cycle reduced the cost of applying to residency.
The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the urology match process. The faculty and resident interviews remained the most important factors in program ranking, and most applicants agreed those were adequately replicated in the virtual format. A plurality of applicants felt that the interview process should remain virtual in a post-COVID-19 environment. The virtual application cycle reduced the cost of applying to residency.
To improve prostate cancer screening for high-risk men, we developed an early detection clinic for patients at high genetic risk of developing prostate cancer. Despite the rapidly growing understanding of germline variants in driving aggressive prostate cancer and the increased availability of genetic testing, there is little evidence surrounding how best to screen these men.
We are reporting on the first 45 patients enrolled, men between the ages of 35-75, primarily with known pathogenic germline variants in prostate cancer susceptibility genes. Screening consists of an intake lifestyle survey, PSA, DRE, and SelectMDx urine assay. A biopsy was recommended for any of the following indications 1) abnormal DRE, 2) PSA above threshold, or 3) SelectMDx above threshold. The primary outcomes were number needed to screen, and number needed to biopsy to diagnose a patient with prostate cancer.
Patients enrolled in the clinic included those with BRCA1 (n=7), BRCA2 (n=16), Lynch Syndrome (n=6), and CHEK2 (n = 4) known pathogenic germline variants. The median age and PSA were 58 (range 35-71) and 1.4 ng/ml (range 0.1-11.4 ng/ml), respectively. 12 patients underwent a prostate needle biopsy and there were 4positive biopsies for prostate cancer.
These early data support the feasibility of opening a dedicated clinic for men at high genetic risk of prostate cancer. This early report on the initial enrollment of our long-term study will help optimize early detection protocols and provide evidence for personalized prostate cancer screening in men with key pathogenic germline variants.
These early data support the feasibility of opening a dedicated clinic for men at high genetic risk of prostate cancer. This early report on the initial enrollment of our long-term study will help optimize early detection protocols and provide evidence for personalized prostate cancer screening in men with key pathogenic germline variants.Calcium and other cofactors can feature as key additions to a molecular interface, to the extent that the cofactor is completely buried in the bound state. How can such an interaction be regulated then? The answer By facilitating a switch through an allosteric network. Although a number of unbinding mechanisms are being characterized, an extensive computational study by Joswig et al. reveals a detailed model for the pattern recognition receptor langerin.N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the most frequent chemical modification in eukaryotic mRNA and is known to participate in a variety of physiological processes, including cancer progression and viral infection. The reversible and dynamic m6A modification is installed by m6A methyltransferase (writer) enzymes and erased by m6A demethylase (eraser) enzymes. m6A modification recognized by m6A binding proteins (readers) regulates RNA processing and metabolism, leading to downstream biological effects such as promotion of stability and translation or increased degradation. The m6A writers and erasers determine the abundance of m6A modifications and play decisive roles in its distribution and function. In this review, we focused on m6A writers and erasers and present an overview on their known functions and enzymatic molecular mechanisms, showing how they recognize substrates and install or remove m6A modifications. We also summarize the current applications of m6A writers and erasers for m6A detection and highlight the merits and drawbacks of these available methods. Lastly, we describe the biological functions of m6A in cancers and viral infection based on research of m6A writers and erasers and introduce new assays for m6A functionality via programmable m6A editing tools.Reverse transcriptases (RTs) can switch template strands during complementary DNA synthesis, enabling them to join discontinuous nucleic acid sequences. Template switching (TS) plays crucial roles in retroviral replication and recombination, is used for adapter addition in RNA-Seq, and may contribute to retroelement fitness by increasing evolutionary diversity and enabling continuous complementary DNA synthesis on damaged templates. Here, we determined an X-ray crystal structure of a TS complex of a group II intron RT bound simultaneously to an acceptor RNA and donor RNA template-DNA primer heteroduplex with a 1-nt 3′-DNA overhang. The structure showed that the 3′ end of the acceptor RNA binds in a pocket formed by an N-terminal extension present in non-long terminal repeat-retroelement RTs and the RT fingertips loop, with the 3′ nucleotide of the acceptor base paired to the 1-nt 3′-DNA overhang and its penultimate nucleotide base paired to the incoming dNTP at the RT active site. Analysis of structure-guided mutations identified amino acids that contribute to acceptor RNA binding and a phenylalanine residue near the RT active site that mediates nontemplated nucleotide addition.
Please follow & like us :)
All content contained on CatsWannaBeCats.Com, unless otherwise acknowledged,is the property of CatsWannaBeCats.Com and subject to copyright.