Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate introductions and spread of different HIV-1 subtypes in the Netherlands. Design: We identified distinct HIV-1 transmission chains in the... Show moreObjective: The aim of this study was to investigate introductions and spread of different HIV-1 subtypes in the Netherlands. Design: We identified distinct HIV-1 transmission chains in the Netherlands within the global epidemic context through viral phylogenetic analysis of partial HIV-1 polymerase sequences from individuals enrolled in the ATHENA national HIV cohort of all persons in care since 1996, and publicly available international background sequences. Methods: Viral lineages circulating in the Netherlands were identified through maximum parsimony phylogeographic analysis. The proportion of HIV-1 infections acquired in-country among heterosexuals and MSM was estimated from phylogenetically observed, national transmission chains using a branching process model that accounts for incomplete sampling. Results: As of 1 January 2019, 2589 (24%) of 10 971 (41%) HIV-1 sequenced individuals in ATHENA had non-B subtypes (A1, C, D, F, G) or circulating recombinant forms (CRF01AE, CRF02AG, CRF06-cpx). The 1588 heterosexuals were in 1224, and 536 MSM in 270 phylogenetically observed transmission chains. After adjustments for incomplete sampling, most heterosexual (75%) and MSM (76%) transmission chains were estimated to include only the individual introducing the virus (size = 1). Onward transmission occurred mostly in chains size 2-5 amongst heterosexuals (62%) and in chains size at least 10 amongst MSM (64%). Considering some chains originated in-country from other risk-groups, 40% (95% confidence interval: 36-44) of non-B-infected heterosexuals and 62% (95% confidence interval: 49-73) of MSM-acquired infection in-country. Conclusion: Although most HIV-1 non-B introductions showed no or very little onward transmission, a considerable proportion of non-B infections amongst both heterosexuals and MSM in the Netherlands have been acquired in-country. Show less
Almeida, R.C. de; Mahfouz, A.; Mei, H.L.; Houtman, E.; Hollander, W. den; Soul, J.; ... ; Meulenbelt, I. 2021
Objective. To identify OA subtypes based on cartilage transcriptomic data in cartilage tissue and characterize their underlying pathophysiological processes and/or clinically relevant... Show moreObjective. To identify OA subtypes based on cartilage transcriptomic data in cartilage tissue and characterize their underlying pathophysiological processes and/or clinically relevant characteristics.Methods. This study includes n = 66 primary OA patients (41 knees and 25 hips), who underwent a joint replacement surgery, from which macroscopically unaffected (preserved, n = 56) and lesioned (n = 45) OA articular cartilage were collected [Research Arthritis and Articular Cartilage (RAAK) study]. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis on preserved cartilage transcriptome followed by clinical data integration was performed. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) followed by pathway enrichment analysis were done for genes significant differentially expressed between subgroups with interactions in the PPI network.Results. Analysis of preserved samples (n = 56) resulted in two OA subtypes with n = 41 (cluster A) and n = 15 (cluster B) patients. The transcriptomic profile of cluster B cartilage, relative to cluster A (DE-AB genes) showed among others a pronounced upregulation of multiple genes involved in chemokine pathways. Nevertheless, upon investigating the OA pathophysiology in cluster B patients as reflected by differentially expressed genes between preserved and lesioned OA cartilage (DE-OA-B genes), the chemokine genes were significantly downregulated with OA pathophysiology. Upon integrating radiographic OA data, we showed that the OA phenotype among cluster B patients, relative to cluster A, may be characterized by higher joint space narrowing (JSN) scores and low osteophyte (OP) scores.Conclusion. Based on whole-transcriptome profiling, we identified two robust OA subtypes characterized by unique OA, pathophysiological processes in cartilage as well as a clinical phenotype. We advocate that further characterization, confirmation and clinical data integration is a prerequisite to allow for development of treatments towards personalized care with concurrently more effective treatment response. Show less
Background: In Parkinson's disease (PD), there is heterogeneity in the clinical presentation and underlying biology. Research on PD subtypes aims to understand this heterogeneity with potential... Show moreBackground: In Parkinson's disease (PD), there is heterogeneity in the clinical presentation and underlying biology. Research on PD subtypes aims to understand this heterogeneity with potential contribution for the knowledge of disease pathophysiology, natural history and therapeutic development. There have been many studies of PD subtypes but their impact remains unclear with limited application in research or clinical practice.Objective: To critically evaluate PD subtyping systems.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PD subtypes, assessing the characteristics of the studies reporting a subtyping system for the first time. We completed a critical appraisal of their methodologic quality and clinical applicability using standardized checklists.Results: We included 38 studies. The majority were cross-sectional (n = 26, 68.4%), used a data-driven approach (n = 25, 65.8%), and non-clinical biomarkers were rarely used (n = 5, 13.1%). Motor characteristics were the domain most commonly reported to differentiate PD subtypes. Most of the studies did not achieve the top rating across items of a Methodologic Quality checklist. In a Clinical Applicability Checklist, the clinical importance of differences between subtypes, potential treatment implications and applicability to the general population were rated poorly, and subtype stability over time and prognostic value were largely unknown.Conclusion: Subtyping studies undertaken to date have significant methodologic shortcomings and most have questionable clinical applicability and unknown biological relevance. The clinical and biological signature of PD may be unique to the individual, rendering PD resistant to meaningful cluster solutions. New approaches that acknowledge the individual-level heterogeneity and that are more aligned with personalized medicine are needed. Show less
