The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer.

Dior PCB failed to show equivalence to Taxus DES regarding angiographic end points during PCI of small coronary arteries. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (EUDRACT CODE): 2009-012268-15.

Highlights d Single-cell RNA-sequencing identifies cell populations involved in muscle regeneration d Muscle stem/progenitor cells form a hierarchy with stagespecific regulatory programs d Bioinformatic analysis identified paracrine factors influencing muscle stem cells d Syndecan-1/2/4 coordinate paracrine ligand-specific muscle progenitor proliferation

Muscle stem cells (MuSCs) are an essential adult stem cell population with the capacity to self-renew and regenerate muscle tissue. Functionally heterogeneous subpopulations of MuSCs have been identified based on their expression of myogenic regulatory factors and surface markers. However, a unified organization of muscle stem and progenitor cells and their subpopulations remains unresolved.Here, we performed temporal analysis of skeletal muscle regeneration using single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) of myotoxin-injured adult mouse hindlimb muscles. We generated over 34,000 single-cell transcriptomes spanning four muscle regeneration time-points and identified 15 distinct cell types, including a heterogeneous population of MuSCs and progenitor cells. Our analysis provides a hierarchical map of myogenic cell populations and identifies stage-specific regulatory programs that govern their contributions to muscle regeneration. In this transcriptomic atlas, we observed cell type-specific regenerative dynamics, exemplified by waves of transient amplification and diversification of multiple immune cell types and, subsequently, myogenic cells. Unbiased trajectory inference organized the myogenic cell populations within the atlas into a continuum, consisting of a hierarchy of quiescent MuSCs, cycling progenitors, committed myoblasts, and terminally differentiated myocytes. This myogenic trajectory matched prior understanding and also revealed that MuSC stages are defined by synchronous changes in regulatory factors, cell cycle-associated, and surface receptor gene expression. Lastly, we analyzed the transcriptomic atlas to identify over 100 candidate heterotypic communication signals between myogenic and non-myogenic cell populations, including many involving the fibroblast growth factor (FGF), Notch, and Syndecan receptor families and their associated ligands. Syndecan receptors were implicated in a large fraction of these cell communication interactions and were observed to exhibit transcriptional heterogeneity within the myogenic continuum. Using multiparameter mass cytometry (CyTOF), we confirmed that cycling MuSCs exhibit diversified Syndecan-1/2 expression, which suggests that dynamic alterations in Syndecan signaling interactions may coordinate stage-specific myogenic cell fate regulation. This scRNA-seq reference atlas provides a resolved hierarchical organization of myogenic subpopulations as a resource to investigate cell-cell interactions that regulate myogenic stem and progenitor cell fates in muscle regeneration.suggest that myogenic stem/progenitor cell lineage can be interpreted as a continuum of hierarchical cell states. However, it remains an unresolved challenge how global profiles in cell cycle mediators, regulatory factors and surface markers define this myogenic continuum.Recent advances in single-cell analyses and algorithms provide potent new strategies to infer cell differentiation trajectories (Hwang et al., 2018;Wagner et al., 2016). Here, we generated a single-cell transcriptomic atlas of mous...

Among UHR patients, persistence or recurrence of non-psychotic comorbid mental disorders, mostly affective disorders, is associated with 6-year poor functional outcomes.

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

Background:Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS) are key inclusion criteria to define individuals at ultra high risk for psychosis (UHR). Their diagnostic and prognostic significance is unclear. Objectives:To address the baseline diagnostic relationship between BLIPS and the ICD-10 categories and examine the longitudinal prognostic impact of clinical and sociodemographic factors. Methods:Prospective long-term study in UHR individuals meeting BLIPS criteria. Sociodemographic and clinical data, including ICD-10 diagnoses, were automatically drawn from electronic health records and analyzed using Kaplan–Meier failure function (1-survival), Cox regression models, bootstrapping methods, and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve. Results:Eighty BLIPS were included. At baseline, two-thirds (68%) of BLIPS met the diagnostic criteria for ICD-10 Acute and Transient Psychotic Disorder (ATPD), most featuring schizophrenic symptoms. The remaining individuals met ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for unspecified nonorganic psychosis (15%), mental and behavioral disorders due to use of cannabinoids (11%), and mania with psychotic symptoms (6%). The overall 5-year risk of psychosis was 0.54. Recurrent episodes of BLIPS were relatively rare (11%) but associated with a higher risk of psychosis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.98) than mono-episodic BLIPS at the univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed that seriously disorganizing or dangerous features increased greatly (HR = 4.39) the risk of psychosis (0.89 at 5-year). Bootstrapping confirmed the robustness of this predictor (area under the ROC = 0.74). Conclusions:BLIPS are most likely to fulfill the ATPD criteria, mainly acute schizophrenic subtypes. About half of BLIPS cases develops a psychotic disorder during follow-up. Recurrent BLIPS are relatively rare but tend to develop into psychosis. BLIPS with seriously disorganizing or dangerous features have an extreme high risk of psychosis.

No abstract