@article{NovakovaSubileauToegeletal.2014, author = {Novakova, Iveta and Subileau, Eva-Anne and Toegel, Stefan and Gruber, Daniela and Lachmann, Bodo and Urban, Ernst and Chesne, Christophe and Noe, Christian R. and Neuhaus, Winfried}, title = {Transport Rankings of Non-Steroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs across Blood-Brain Barrier In Vitro Models}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {9}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0086806}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-119992}, pages = {e86806}, year = {2014}, abstract = {The aim of this work was to conduct a comprehensive study about the transport properties of NSAIDs across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in vitro. Transport studies with celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, piroxicam and tenoxicam were accomplished across Transwell models based on cell line PBMEC/C1-2, ECV304 or primary rat brain endothelial cells. Single as well as group substance studies were carried out. In group studies substance group compositions, transport medium and serum content were varied, transport inhibitors verapamil and probenecid were added. Resulted permeability coefficients were compared and normalized to internal standards diazepam and carboxyfluorescein. Transport rankings of NSAIDs across each model were obtained. Single substance studies showed similar rankings as corresponding group studies across PBMEC/C1-2 or ECV304 cell layers. Serum content, glioma conditioned medium and inhibitors probenecid and verapamil influenced resulted permeability significantly. Basic differences of transport properties of the investigated NSAIDs were similar comparing all three in vitro BBB models. Different substance combinations in the group studies and addition of probenecid and verapamil suggested that transporter proteins are involved in the transport of every tested NSAID. Results especially underlined the importance of same experimental conditions (transport medium, serum content, species origin, cell line) for proper data comparison.}, language = {en} } @article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013, author = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin}, title = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {8}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938}, pages = {e65636}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.}, language = {en} }