ZIB

Hits per page

hits 1 - 2 | 2 hits

Sorting

Electronic Resource

EVIDENCE THAT DERIVATION OF THE ADENOCARCINOMA LT85 PREDATED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE H-2km2 MUTATION IN A C3HF COLONY OF MICE (1989)

Vogel, J. M. ; McMillan, M. ; Martin, W. J. ; [et al.]

Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing Ltd

International journal of immunogenetics 16 (1989), S. 0

add to mindlist on the mindlist

Details

ISSN: 1744-313X

Source: Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005

Topics: Biology , Medicine

Notes: The adenocarcinoma LT85 was chemically induced in a mouse from a C3Hf colony shown subsequently to be inbred for a gene conversion-like mutation at the H-2K locus, characterized by a clustered four nucleotide substitution in exon 3. The H-2K phenotype of LT85, however, more closely resembles that of C3H rather than the mutant strain now designated C3Hf H-2km2. We cloned and sequenced the H-2K gene from this tumor to determine whether (i) LT85 might carry a tumor-associated somatic reversion of the H-2Kkm2 germline mutation or (ii) the tumor was induced in a mouse that was genetically H-2k rather than H-2km2. Our analysis confirmed that the LT85 H-2K allele is identical throughout the entire coding region to C3H H-2Kk. To exclude the possibility of a somatic reversion by recombination, we used an oligonucleotide probe corresponding to the region altered in H-2k to show that the C3Hf genome lacks the necessary coding information to reverse the H-2Kkm2 mutation through a sequence exchange with another class I locus. Since it is unlikely that multiple independent point mutations would account for restoration of this stretch of H-2Kk sequences, the tumor was probably established in a mouse carrying a normal H-2Kk allele, possibly at a point prior to the establishment of the H-2Kkm2 mutation as a homozygous trait within the C3Hf colony.

Type of Medium: Electronic Resource

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-313X.1989.tb00483.x

Permalink

Library	Location	Call Number	Volume/Issue/Year	Availability

Others were also interested in ...

Paper (German National Licenses)

Fulltext

Electronic Resource

When should bone density measurements be repeated? (1994)

He, Y. F. ; Ross, P. D. ; Davis, J. W. ; [et al.]

Springer

Calcified tissue international 55 (1994), S. 243-248

add to mindlist on the mindlist

Details

ISSN: 1432-0827

Keywords: Osteoporosis ; Bone density ; Longitudinal studies ; Statistical models ; Decision models

Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000

Topics: Biology , Medicine , Physics

Notes: Abstract We calculated how long to wait before repeating bone mineral density (BMD) measurements to reassess fracture risk. Correlation results from serial measurements of 495 postmenopausal Japanese-American women were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for future BMD. After 7 years of follow-up, BMD correlations with the initial measurement ranged between 0.81 and 0.94, depending on age group and measurement site. In this analysis, the period between measurements was defined as the time required for the lower 95% CI to fall below the BMD value corresponding to doubling of fracture risk. Progressive bone loss causes fracture risk to double after 10 years, on average. However, the 95% CIs indicate that a second BMD measurement will detect risk doubling after only 2 or 3 years for some women. For untreated, early postmenopausal women, the period between measurements was approximately 2–5 years for the radius and 4–6 years for the calcaneus, depending on the initial BMD level. The period was approximately 1 year longer for women age 60 and older. Treatments that halve the bone loss rate would increase the period by 1–3 years. In the absence of a second measurement of BMD, the CI will continue to expand with time, corresponding to a wider range in risk between individuals, and a greater proportion of women will be at increased fracture risk. Obtaining a second BMD measurement pinpoints the patient's status within the precision of the measurement. We conclude that repeated BMD measurements will provide a more accurate estimate of fracture risk than a single, baseline measurement.