Circe Tsui

Recently Mobilized Transposons in the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes

Transposable genetic elements are abundant in the genomes of most organisms, including humans. These endogenous mutagens can alter genes, promote genomic rearrangements, and may help to drive the speciation of organisms. In this study, we identified almost 11,000 transposon copies that are differentially present in the human and chimpanzee genomes. Most of these transposon copies were mobilized after the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, approximately 6 million years ago. Alu, L1, and SVA insertions accounted for >95% of the insertions in both species. Our data indicate that humans have supported higher levels of transposition than have chimpanzees during the past several million years and have amplified different transposon subfamilies. In both species, approximately 34% of the insertions were located within known genes. These insertions represent a form of species-specific genetic variation that may have contributed to the differential evolution of humans and chimpanzees. In addition to providing an initial overview of recently mobilized elements, our collections will be useful for assessing the impact of these insertions on their hosts and for studying the transposition mechanisms of these elements.

The “Metabolic Syndrome” Is Less Useful than Random Plasma Glucose to Screen for Glucose Intolerance

AIMS To compare the utility of metabolic syndrome (MetS) to random plasma glucose (RPG) in identifying people with diabetes or prediabetes. METHODS RPG was measured and an OGTT was performed in 1155 adults. Test performance was measured by area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AROC). RESULTS Diabetes was found in 5.1% and prediabetes in 20.0%. AROC for MetS with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was 0.80 to detect diabetes, and 0.76 for diabetes or prediabetes--similar to RPG alone (0.82 and 0.72). However, the AROC for MetS excluding fasting plasma glucose was lower: 0.69 for diabetes (p<0.01 vs. both RPG and MetS with FPG), and 0.69 for diabetes or prediabetes. AROCs for MetS with FPG and RPG were comparable and higher for recognizing diabetes in blacks vs. whites, and females vs. males. MetS with FPG was superior to RPG for identifying diabetes only in subjects with age <40 or BMI <25. CONCLUSIONS MetS features can be used to identify risk of diabetes, but predictive usefulness is driven largely by FPG. Overall, to identify diabetes or prediabetes in blacks and whites with varying age and BMI, MetS is no better than RPG--a more convenient and less expensive test.

Medication reconciliation: comparing a customized medication history form to a standard medication form in a specialty clinic (CAMPII 2).

Background Medication history forms completed by patients are an essential part of the medication reconciliation process. Objective In a crossover prospective study, investigators compared the accuracy and acceptability of a “fill-in-the blank” medication history form (USUAL) to a customized form (CUSTOM) that contained a checklist of the 44 most frequently prescribed diabetes clinic medications. Methods The content of both forms was compared to a “gold-standard” medication list compiled by a clinical pharmacist who conducted a medication history and reviewed pharmacy profiles and medical chart. Subject preference and time to complete the forms were also determined. Accurate was defined as complete and correct (name, dose, and frequency) relative to the gold standard. Results A total of 77 subjects completed both forms. Complete list accuracy was poor; there was no difference in the accuracy between CUSTOM (6.5%) and USUAL (9.1%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.33; P = 0.62). Out of a total of 648 medications, subjects accurately listed 43.7% of medications on CUSTOM and 45.5% on USUAL (OR, 0.88; P = 0.41). The 44 medications on the checklist were more than twice as likely to be accurately reported using CUSTOM than with USUAL (OR, 2.1; P = 0.0002). More subjects preferred CUSTOM (65.7%) compared with USUAL (32.8%, P = 0.007). Conclusion Medication self-report is very poor, and few subjects created an accurate list on either form. Subjects were more likely to report the drugs on the checklist using CUSTOM than when they used USUAL; however, there was no difference in the overall accuracy between CUSTOM and USUAL.