No abstract

Traditionally, circadian clocks have been thought of as a neurobiological phenomenon. This view changed somewhat over recent years with the discovery of peripheral tissue circadian oscillators. In mammals, however, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in the hypothalamus still retains the critical role of a central synchronizer of biological timing. Zebrafish, in contrast, have always reflected a more highly decentralized level of clock organization, as individual cells and tissues contain directly light responsive circadian pacemakers. As a consequence, clock function in the zebrafish brain has remained largely unexplored, and the precise organization of rhythmic and light-sensitive neurons within the brain is unknown. To address this issue, we used the period3 (per3)-luciferase transgenic zebrafish to confirm that multiple brain regions contain endogenous circadian oscillators that are directly light responsive. In addition, in situ hybridization revealed localised neural expression of several rhythmic and light responsive clock genes, including per3, cryptochrome1a (cry1a) and per2. Adult brain nuclei showing significant clock gene expression include the teleost equivalent of the SCN, as well as numerous hypothalamic nuclei, the periventricular grey zone (PGZ) of the optic tectum, and granular cells of the rhombencephalon. To further investigate the light sensitive properties of neurons, expression of c-fos, a marker for neuronal activity, was examined. c-fos mRNA was upregulated in response to changing light conditions in different nuclei within the zebrafish brain. Furthermore, under constant dark (DD) conditions, c-fos shows a significant circadian oscillation. Taken together, these results show that there are numerous areas of the zebrafish central nervous system, which contain deep brain photoreceptors and directly light-entrainable circadian pacemakers. However, there are also multiple brain nuclei, which possess neither, demonstrating a degree of pacemaker complexity that was not previously appreciated.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo analyse the clinical utility of a prediction model incorporating both clinical information and a novel biomarker, p2PSA, in order to inform the decision for prostate biopsy in an Irish cohort of men referred for prostate cancer assessment. Patients and MethodsSerum isolated from 250 men from three tertiary referral centres with pre-biopsy blood draws was analysed for total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA (fPSA) and p2PSA. From this, the Prostate Health Index (PHI) score was calculated (PHI = (p2PSA/fPSA)*√tPSA). The men's clinical information was used to derive their risk according to the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk model. Two clinical prediction models were created via multivariable regression consisting of age, family history, abnormality on digital rectal examination, previous negative biopsy and either PSA or PHI score, respectively. Calibration plots, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and decision curves were generated to assess the performance of the three models. ResultsThe PSA model and PHI model were both well calibrated in this cohort, with the PHI model showing the best correlation between predicted probabilities and actual outcome. The areas under the ROC curve for the PHI model, PSA model and PCPT model were 0.77, 0.71 and 0.69, respectively, for the prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) and 0.79, 0.72 and 0.72, respectively, for the prediction of high grade PCa. Decision-curve analysis showed a superior net benefit of the PHI model over both the PSA model and the PCPT risk model in the diagnosis of PCa and high grade PCa over the entire range of risk probabilities. ConclusionA logical and standardized approach to the use of clinical risk factors can allow more accurate risk stratification of men under investigation for PCa. The measurement of p2PSA and the integration of this biomarker into a clinical prediction model can further increase the accuracy of risk stratification, helping to better inform the decision for prostate biopsy in a referral population.

No abstract