Martinotti cells are the most prominent distal dendrite–targeting interneurons in the cortex, but their role in controlling pyramidal cell (PC) activity is largely unknown. Here, we show that the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor α2 subunit (Chrna2) specifically marks layer 5 (L5) Martinotti cells projecting to layer 1. Furthermore, we confirm that Chrna2-expressing Martinotti cells selectively target L5 thick-tufted type A PCs but not thin-tufted type B PCs. Using optogenetic activation and inhibition, we demonstrate how Chrna2-Martinotti cells robustly reset and synchronize type A PCs via slow rhythmic burst activity and rebound excitation. Moreover, using optical feedback inhibition, in which PC spikes controlled the firing of surrounding Chrna2-Martinotti cells, we found that neighboring PC spike trains became synchronized by Martinotti cell inhibition. Together, our results show that L5 Martinotti cells participate in defined cortical circuits and can synchronize PCs in a frequency-dependent manner. These findings suggest that Martinotti cells are pivotal for coordinated PC activity, which is involved in cortical information processing and cognitive control.
Summary Background: Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head‐to‐head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions. Aim: Evaluation of different methodologies used to indirectly compare interventions based on meta analyses of randomised controlled trials. Methods: Systematic review of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE and MEDLINE for reports including meta analyses that contained an indirect comparison. Searching was completed in July 2007. No restriction was placed on language or year of publication. Results: Sixty‐two papers identified contained indirect comparisons of treatments. Five different methodologies were employed: comparing point estimates (1/62); comparing 95% confidence intervals (26/62); performing statistical tests on summary estimates (8/62); indirect comparison using a single common comparator (20/62); and mixed treatment comparison (MTC) (7/62). The only methodologies that provide an estimate of the difference between the interventions under consideration and a measure of the uncertainty around that estimate are indirect comparison using a single common comparator and MTC. The MTC might have advantages over other approaches because it is not reliant on a single common comparator and can incorporate the results of direct and indirect comparisons into the analysis. Indirect comparisons require an underlying assumption of consistency of evidence. Utilising any of the methodologies when this assumption is not true can produce misleading results. Conclusions: Use of either indirect comparison using a common comparator or MTC provides estimates for use in decision making, with the preferred methodology being dependent on the available data.
While there were a wide range of interventions studied, both pharmaceutical and otherwise, there were a limited number of placebo controlled trials. In comparing the efficacy of the commonly used antiemetics, metoclopramide, ondansetron, and promethazine, the results of this review do not support the clear superiority of one over the other in symptomatic relief. Other factors such as side effect profile medication safety and healthcare costs should also be considered when selecting an intervention.
Despite many potential applications, miniature mass spectrometers have had limited adoption in the field due to the tradeoff between throughput and resolution that limits their performance relative to laboratory instruments. Recently, a solution to this tradeoff has been demonstrated by using spatially coded apertures in magnetic sector mass spectrometers, enabling throughput and signal-to-background improvements of greater than an order of magnitude with no loss of resolution. This paper describes a proof of concept demonstration of a cycloidal coded aperture miniature mass spectrometer (C-CAMMS) demonstrating use of spatially coded apertures in a cycloidal sector mass analyzer for the first time. C-CAMMS also incorporates a miniature carbon nanotube (CNT) field emission electron ionization source and a capacitive transimpedance amplifier (CTIA) ion array detector. Results confirm the cycloidal mass analyzer's compatibility with aperture coding. A >10× increase in throughput was achieved without loss of resolution compared with a single slit instrument. Several areas where additional improvement can be realized are identified. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.
We have developed a robust, fast, and automatable transplantation assay to establish orthotopic GBM tumors in zebrafish. In contrast to currently available orthotopic zebrafish models, our approach does not require technically challenging intracranial transplantation of single embryos. Our improved zebrafish model enables transplantation of thousands of embryos per hour, thus providing an orthotopic vertebrate GBM model for direct application in drug discovery screens.
BackgroundTypically occurring on the external genitalia, anogenital warts (AGWs) are benign epithelial skin lesions caused by human papillomavirus infection. AGWs are usually painless but can be unsightly and physically uncomfortable, and affected people might experience psychological distress. The evidence base on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for AGWs is limited.ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments for AGWs and to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) were searched from inception (or January 2000 for Web of Science) to September 2014. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify potentially relevant studies. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing and planned studies.Review methodsA systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out according to standard methods and a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) undertaken. The model implemented for each outcome was that with the lowest deviance information criterion. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model structure was informed through a systematic review of the economic literature and in consultation with clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the MTC. Costs were obtained from the literature and standard UK sources.ResultsOf 4232 titles and abstracts screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness, 60 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 19 interventions were included. Analysis by MTC indicated that ablative techniques were typically more effective than topical interventions at completely clearing AGWs at the end of treatment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (Condyline®, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Warticon®solution, Stiefel Laboratories Ltd) was found to be the most effective topical treatment evaluated. Networks for other outcomes included fewer treatments, which restrict conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In total, 84 treatment strategies were assessed using the economic model. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution first line followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) laser therapy second line if AGWs did not clear was most likely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources at a willingness to pay of £20,000–30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. The result was robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted.LimitationsLimited reporting in identified studies of baseline characteristics for the enrolled population generates uncertainty around the comparability of the study populations and therefore the generalisability of the results to clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were planned based on type, number and size of AGWs, all of which are factors thought to influence treatment effect. Lack of data on clinical effectiveness based on these characteristics precluded analysis of the differential effects of treatments in the subgroups of interest. Despite identification of 60 studies, most comparisons in the MTC are informed by only one RCT. Additionally, lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing key treatments, together with minimal reporting of results in some studies, precluded comprehensive analysis of all treatments for AGWs.ConclusionsThe results generated by the MTC are in agreement with consensus opinion that ablative techniques are clinically more effective at completely clearing AGWs after treatment. However, the evidence base informing the MTC is limited. A head-to-head RCT that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of interventions used in clinical practice would help to discern the potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual treatments. The results of the economic analysis suggest that podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution is likely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment option. More expensive effective treatments, such as CO2laser therapy or surgery, may represent cost-effective second-line treatment options. No treatment and podophyllin are unlikely to be considered cost-effective treatment options. There is uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of treatment with imiquimod, trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005457.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.