@article{AntoniouKuchenbaeckerSoucyetal.2012, author = {Antoniou, Antonis C. and Kuchenbaecker, Karoline B. and Soucy, Penny and Beesley, Jonathan and Chen, Xiaoqing and McGuffog, Lesley and Lee, Andrew and Barrowdale, Daniel and Healey, Sue and Sinilnikova, Olga M. and Caligo, Maria A. and Loman, Niklas and Harbst, Katja and Lindblom, Annika and Arver, Brita and Rosenquist, Richard and Karlsson, Per and Nathanson, Kate and Domchek, Susan and Rebbeck, Tim and Jakubowska, Anna and Lubinski, Jan and Jaworska, Katarzyna and Durda, Katarzyna and Zlowowcka-Perłowska, Elżbieta and Osorio, Ana and Dur{\´a}n, Mercedes and Andr{\´e}s, Raquel and Ben{\´i}tez, Javier and Hamann, Ute and Hogervorst, Frans B. and van Os, Theo A. and Verhoef, Senno and Meijers-Heijboer, Hanne E. J. and Wijnen, Juul and Garcia, Encarna B. G{\´o}mez and Ligtenberg, Marjolijn J. and Kriege, Mieke and Coll{\´e}e, Margriet and Ausems, Margreet G. E. M. and Oosterwijk, Jan C. and Peock, Susan and Frost, Debra and Ellis, Steve D. and Platte, Radka and Fineberg, Elena and Evans, D. Gareth and Lalloo, Fiona and Jacobs, Chris and Eeles, Ros and Adlard, Julian and Davidson, Rosemarie and Cole, Trevor and Cook, Jackie and Paterson, Joan and Douglas, Fiona and Brewer, Carole and Hodgson, Shirley and Morrison, Patrick J. and Walker, Lisa and Rogers, Mark T. and Donaldson, Alan and Dorkins, Huw and Godwin, Andrew K. and Bove, Betsy and Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique and Houdayer, Claude and Buecher, Bruno and de Pauw, Antoine and Mazoyer, Sylvie and Calender, Alain and L{\´e}on{\´e}, M{\´e}lanie and Bressac-de Paillerets, Brigitte and Caron, Olivier and Sobol, Hagay and Frenay, Marc and Prieur, Fabienne and Ferrer, Sandra Fert and Mortemousque, Isabelle and Buys, Saundra and Daly, Mary and Miron, Alexander and Terry, Mary Beth and Hopper, John L. and John, Esther M. and Southey, Melissa and Goldgar, David and Singer, Christian F. and Fink-Retter, Anneliese and Muy-Kheng, Tea and Geschwantler Kaulich, Daphne and Hansen, Thomas V. O. and Nielsen, Finn C. and Barkardottir, Rosa B. and Gaudet, Mia and Kirchhoff, Tomas and Joseph, Vijai and Dutra-Clarke, Ana and Offit, Kenneth and Piedmonte, Marion and Kirk, Judy and Cohn, David and Hurteau, Jean and Byron, John and Fiorica, James and Toland, Amanda E. and Montagna, Marco and Oliani, Cristina and Imyanitov, Evgeny and Isaacs, Claudine and Tihomirova, Laima and Blanco, Ignacio and Lazaro, Conxi and Teul{\´e}, Alex and Del Valle, J. and Gayther, Simon A. and Odunsi, Kunle and Gross, Jenny and Karlan, Beth Y. and Olah, Edith and Teo, Soo-Hwang and Ganz, Patricia A. and Beattie, Mary S. and Dorfling, Cecelia M. and Jansen van Rensburg, Elizabeth and Diez, Orland and Kwong, Ava and Schmutzler, Rita K. and Wappenschmidt, Barbara and Engel, Christoph and Meindl, Alfons and Ditsch, Nina and Arnold, Norbert and Heidemann, Simone and Niederacher, Dieter and Preisler-Adams, Sabine and Gadzicki, Dorothea and Varon-Mateeva, Raymonda and Deissler, Helmut and Gehrig, Andrea and Sutter, Christian and Kast, Karin and Fiebig, Britta and Sch{\"a}fer, Dieter and Caldes, Trinidad and de la Hoya, Miguel and Nevanlinna, Heli and Muranen, Taru A. and Lesp{\´e}rance, Bernard and Spurdle, Amanda B. and Neuhausen, Susan L. and Ding, Yuan C. and Wang, Xianshu and Fredericksen, Zachary and Pankratz, Vernon S. and Lindor, Noralane M. and Peterlongo, Paulo and Manoukian, Siranoush and Peissel, Bernard and Zaffaroni, Daniela and Bonanni, Bernardo and Bernard, Loris and Dolcetti, Riccardo and Papi, Laura and Ottini, Laura and Radice, Paolo and Greene, Mark H. and Loud, Jennifer T. and Andrulis, Irene L. and Ozcelik, Hilmi and Mulligan, Anna Marie and Glendon, Gord and Thomassen, Mads and Gerdes, Anne-Marie and Jensen, Uffe B. and Skytte, Anne-Bine and Kruse, Torben A. and Chenevix-Trench, Georgia and Couch, Fergus J. and Simard, Jacques and Easton, Douglas F.}, title = {Common variants at 12p11, 12q24, 9p21, 9q31.2 and in ZNF365 are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers}, series = {Breast Cancer Research}, volume = {14}, journal = {Breast Cancer Research}, number = {R33}, organization = {CIMBA; SWE-BRCA; HEBON; EMBRACE; GEMO Study Collaborators; kConFab Investigators}, doi = {10.1186/bcr3121}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130449}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Introduction: Several common alleles have been shown to be associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Recent genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified eight additional breast cancer susceptibility loci: rs1011970 (9p21, CDKN2A/B), rs10995190 (ZNF365), rs704010 (ZMIZ1), rs2380205 (10p15), rs614367 (11q13), rs1292011 (12q24), rs10771399 (12p11 near PTHLH) and rs865686 (9q31.2). Methods: To evaluate whether these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers and analysed the associations with breast cancer risk within a retrospective likelihood framework. Results: Only SNP rs10771399 near PTHLH was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95\% CI: 0.81 to 0.94, P-trend = 3 x 10\(^{-4}\)). The association was restricted to mutations proven or predicted to lead to absence of protein expression (HR = 0.82, 95\% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 3.1 x 10\(^{-5}\), P-difference = 0.03). Four SNPs were associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers: rs10995190, P-trend = 0.015; rs1011970, P-trend = 0.048; rs865686, 2df P = 0.007; rs1292011 2df P = 0.03. rs10771399 (PTHLH) was predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.81, 95\% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 4 x 10\(^{-5}\)) and there was marginal evidence of association with ER- negative breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.78, 95\% CI: 0.62 to 1.00, P-trend = 0.049). Conclusions: The present findings, in combination with previously identified modifiers of risk, will ultimately lead to more accurate risk prediction and an improved understanding of the disease etiology in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.}, language = {en} } @article{StuehlerKowalewskiReisetal.2022, author = {St{\"u}hler, R. and Kowalewski, A. and Reis, F. and Jungblut, D. and Dominguez, F. and Scharf, B. and Li, G. and Sch{\"a}fer, J. and Hankiewicz, E. M. and Claessen, R.}, title = {Effective lifting of the topological protection of quantum spin Hall edge states by edge coupling}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {13}, journal = {Nature Communications}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-022-30996-z}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-300886}, year = {2022}, abstract = {The scientific interest in two-dimensional topological insulators (2D TIs) is currently shifting from a more fundamental perspective to the exploration and design of novel functionalities. Key concepts for the use of 2D TIs in spintronics are based on the topological protection and spin-momentum locking of their helical edge states. In this study we present experimental evidence that topological protection can be (partially) lifted by pairwise coupling of 2D TI edges in close proximity. Using direct wave function mapping via scanning tunneling microscopy/spectroscopy (STM/STS) we compare isolated and coupled topological edges in the 2D TI bismuthene. The latter situation is realized by natural lattice line defects and reveals distinct quasi-particle interference (QPI) patterns, identified as electronic Fabry-P{\´e}rot resonator modes. In contrast, free edges show no sign of any single-particle backscattering. These results pave the way for novel device concepts based on active control of topological protection through inter-edge hybridization for, e.g., electronic Fabry-P{\´e}rot interferometry.}, language = {en} } @article{DummerPosseckertNestleetal.1992, author = {Dummer, R. and Posseckert, G. and Nestle, F. and Witzgall, R. and Burger, M. and Becker, J. C. and Sch{\"a}fer, E. and Wiede, J. and Sebald, Walter and Burg, G.}, title = {Soluble interleukin-2 receptors inhibit interleukin 2-dependent proliferation and cytotoxicity: explanation for diminished natural killer cell activity in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas in vivo?}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-62473}, year = {1992}, abstract = {No abstract available}, subject = {Biochemie}, language = {en} } @article{ZirkelCecilSchaeferetal.2012, author = {Zirkel, J. and Cecil, A. and Sch{\"a}fer, F. and Rahlfs, S. and Ouedraogo, A. and Xiao, K. and Sawadogo, S. and Coulibaly, B. and Becker, K. and Dandekar, T.}, title = {Analyzing Thiol-Dependent Redox Networks in the Presence of Methylene Blue and Other Antimalarial Agents with RT-PCR-Supported in silico Modeling}, series = {Bioinformatics and Biology Insights}, volume = {6}, journal = {Bioinformatics and Biology Insights}, doi = {10.4137/BBI.S10193}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-123751}, pages = {287-302}, year = {2012}, abstract = {BACKGROUND: In the face of growing resistance in malaria parasites to drugs, pharmacological combination therapies are important. There is accumulating evidence that methylene blue (MB) is an effective drug against malaria. Here we explore the biological effects of both MB alone and in combination therapy using modeling and experimental data. RESULTS: We built a model of the central metabolic pathways in P. falciparum. Metabolic flux modes and their changes under MB were calculated by integrating experimental data (RT-PCR data on mRNAs for redox enzymes) as constraints and results from the YANA software package for metabolic pathway calculations. Several different lines of MB attack on Plasmodium redox defense were identified by analysis of the network effects. Next, chloroquine resistance based on pfmdr/and pfcrt transporters, as well as pyrimethamine/sulfadoxine resistance (by mutations in DHF/DHPS), were modeled in silico. Further modeling shows that MB has a favorable synergism on antimalarial network effects with these commonly used antimalarial drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretical and experimental results support that methylene blue should, because of its resistance-breaking potential, be further tested as a key component in drug combination therapy efforts in holoendemic areas.}, language = {en} } @article{StoelzelMohrKrameretal.2016, author = {St{\"o}lzel, F. and Mohr, B. and Kramer, M. and Oelschl{\"a}gel, U. and Bochtler, T. and Berdel, W. E. and Kaufmann, M. and Baldus, C. D. and Sch{\"a}fer-Eckart, K. and Stuhlmann, R. and Einsele, H. and Krause, S. W. and Serve, H. and H{\"a}nel, M. and Herbst, R. and Neubauer, A. and Sohlbach, K. and Mayer, J. and Middeke, J. M. and Platzbecker, U. and Schaich, M. and Kr{\"a}mer, A. and R{\"o}llig, C. and Schetelig, J. and Bornh{\"a}user, M. and Ehninger, G.}, title = {Karyotype complexity and prognosis in acute myeloid leukemia}, series = {Blood Cancer Journal}, volume = {6}, journal = {Blood Cancer Journal}, doi = {10.1038/bcj.2015.114}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-164530}, pages = {e386}, year = {2016}, abstract = {A complex aberrant karyotype consisting of multiple unrelated cytogenetic abnormalities is associated with poor prognosis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The European Leukemia Net classification and the UK Medical Research Council recommendation provide prognostic categories that differ in the definition of unbalanced aberrations as well as the number of single aberrations. The aim of this study on 3526 AML patients was to redefine and validate a cutoff for karyotype complexity in AML with regard to adverse prognosis. Our study demonstrated that (1) patients with a pure hyperdiploid karyotype have an adverse risk irrespective of the number of chromosomal gains, (2) patients with translocation t(9;11)(p21∼22;q23) have an intermediate risk independent of the number of additional aberrations, (3) patients with 4 abnormalities have an adverse risk per se and (4) patients with three aberrations in the absence of abnormalities of strong influence (hyperdiploid karyotype, t(9;11)(p21∼22;q23), CBF-AML, unique adverse-risk aberrations) have borderline intermediate/adverse risk with a reduced overall survival compared with patients with a normal karyotype.}, language = {en} } @article{BurnsGoldsteinNewgreenetal.2016, author = {Burns, Alan J. and Goldstein, Allan M. and Newgreen, Donald F. and Stamp, Lincon and Sch{\"a}fer, Karl-Herbert and Metzger, Marco and Hotta, Ryo and Young, Heather M. and Andrews, Peter W. and Thapar, Nikhil and Belkind-Gerson, Jaime and Bondurand, Nadege and Bornstein, Joel C. and Chan, Wood Yee and Cheah, Kathryn and Gershon, Michael D. and Heuckeroth, Robert O. and Hofstra, Robert M.W. and Just, Lothar and Kapur, Raj P. and King, Sebastian K. and McCann, Conor J. and Nagy, Nandor and Ngan, Elly and Obermayr, Florian and Pachnis, Vassilis and Pasricha, Pankaj J. and Sham, Mai Har and Tam, Paul and Vanden Berghe, Pieter}, title = {White paper on guidelines concerning enteric nervous system stem cell therapy for enteric neuropathies}, series = {Developmental Biology}, volume = {417}, journal = {Developmental Biology}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.04.001}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-187415}, pages = {229-251}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Over the last 20 years, there has been increasing focus on the development of novel stem cell based therapies for the treatment of disorders and diseases affecting the enteric nervous system (ENS) of the gastrointestinal tract (so-called enteric neuropathies). Here, the idea is that ENS progenitor/stem cells could be transplanted into the gut wall to replace the damaged or absent neurons and glia of the ENS. This White Paper sets out experts' views on the commonly used methods and approaches to identify, isolate, purify, expand and optimize ENS stem cells, transplant them into the bowel, and assess transplant success, including restoration of gut function. We also highlight obstacles that must be overcome in order to progress from successful preclinical studies in animal models to ENS stem cell therapies in the clinic.}, language = {en} } @article{RoelligKramerGabrechtetal.2018, author = {R{\"o}llig, C. and Kramer, M. and Gabrecht, M. and H{\"a}nel, M. and Herbst, R. and Kaiser, U. and Schmitz, N. and Kullmer, J. and Fetscher, S. and Link, H. and Mantovani-L{\"o}ffler, L. and Kr{\"u}mpelmann, U. and Neuhaus, T. and Heits, F. and Einsele, H. and Ritter, B. and Bornh{\"a}user, M. and Schetelig, J. and Thiede, C. and Mohr, B. and Schaich, M. and Platzbecker, U. and Sch{\"a}fer-Eckart, K. and Kr{\"a}mer, A. and Berdel, W. E. and Serve, H. and Ehninger, G. and Schuler, U. S.}, title = {Intermediate-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone versus standard-dose cytarabine plus daunorubicin for acute myeloid leukemia in elderly patients}, series = {Annals of Oncology}, volume = {29}, journal = {Annals of Oncology}, number = {4}, doi = {doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy030}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226473}, pages = {973-978}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Background: The combination of intermediate-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone (IMA) can induce high complete remission rates with acceptable toxicity in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We present the final results of a randomized-controlled trial comparing IMA with the standard 7+3 induction regimen consisting of continuous infusion cytarabine plus daunorubicin (DA). Patients and methods: Patients with newly diagnosed AML>60 years were randomized to receive either intermediate-dose cytarabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1, 3, 5, 7) plus mitoxantrone (10 mg/m(2) days 1-3) (IMA) or standard induction therapy with cytarabine (100 mg/m(2) continuously days 1-7) plus daunorubicin (45 mg/m(2) days 3-5) (DA). Patients in complete remission after DA received intermediate-dose cytarabine plus amsacrine as consolidation treatment, whereas patients after IMA were consolidated with standard-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone. Results: Between February 2005 and October 2009, 485 patients were randomized; 241 for treatment arm DA and 244 for IMA; 76\% of patients were >65 years. The complete response rate after DA was 39\% [95\% confidence interval (95\% CI): 33-45] versus 55\% (95\% CI: 49-61) after IMA (odds ratio 1.89, P = 0.001). The 6-week early-death rate was 14\% in both arms. Relapse-free survival curves were superimposable in the first year, but separated afterwards, resulting in 3-year relapse-free survival rates of 29\% versus 14\% in the DA versus IMA arms, respectively (P = 0.042). The median overall survival was 10 months in both arms (P = 0.513). Conclusion: The dose escalation of cytarabine in induction therapy lead to improved remission rates in the elderly AML patients. This did not translate into a survival advantage, most likely due to differences in consolidation treatment. Thus, effective consolidation strategies need to be further explored. In combination with an effective consolidation strategy, the use of intermediate-dose cytarabine in induction may improve curative treatment for elderly AML patients.}, language = {en} }