05) after 2 h of hypergravity (18 up-regulated, 10 down-regulated) could be identified. The corresponding proteins were largely involved in stress responses, including the detoxification of reactive oxygen species (ROS). In the present study, HIF-1 activation these investigations are extended to phosphorylated proteins. For this purpose, callus cell cultures of Arabidopsis thaliana were exposed to hypergravity (8 g) and simulated weightlessness (random positioning; RP) for up to 30 min, a period

of time which yielded the most reliable data. The first changes, however, were visible as early as 10 min after the start of treatment. In comparison to 1 g controls, exposure to hypergravity resulted in 18 protein spots, and random positioning in 25, respectively, with increased/decreased signal intensity by at least 2-fold (P < 0.05). Only one spot (alanine aminotransferase) responded the same way under both EVP4593 supplier treatments. After 30 min of RP, four spots appeared, which could not be detected in control samples. Among the protein spots altered in phosphorylation, it was possible to identify 24 from those responding to random positioning and 12 which responded to 8 g. These 12 proteins (8 g) are partly (5 out of 12) the same as those changed in expression after exposure to 2 h of hypergravity. The respective proteins are involved in scavenging and detoxification of ROS (32%),

primary metabolism (20.5%), general signalling (14.7%), protein translation and proteolysis (14.7%), and ion homeostasis (8.8%). Together with our Selleckchem KPT-8602 recent data on protein expression, it is assumed that changes in gravitational fields induce the production of ROS. Our data further indicate that responses toward RP are more by post-translational protein modulation (most changes in the degree of phosphorylation occur under RP-treatment) than by protein expression (hypergravity).”
“Background: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of (18)FDG PET-CT for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancer patients.

Methods: Studies about PET-CT were systematically searched in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We calculated sensitivities,

specificities, likelihood ratios, and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves for PET-CT. We also compared the performance of PET-CT with that of conventional imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional imaging on the same patients.

Results: Across 8 PET-CT studies (748 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90-0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92-0.97). Across 6 comparative studies (664 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.97 (95% CI = 0.84-0.99) and 0.95 (95% CI = 0.93-0.97), and of conventional imaging were 0.56 (95% CI = 0.38-0.74) and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.78-0.97), respectively.

Conclusions: Compared with conventional imaging, (18)FDG PET-CT has higher sensitivity for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancer patients.