4 research outputs found
Multiple determinants in voltage-dependent P/Q calcium channels control their retention in the endoplasmic reticulum
No full textInternational audienceSurface expression level of voltage-dependent calcium channels is tightly controlled in neurons to avoid the resulting cell toxicity generally associated with excessive calcium entry. Cell surface expression of high voltage-activated calcium channels requires the association of the pore-forming subunit, Cavalpha, with the auxiliary subunit, Cavbeta. In the absence of this auxiliary subunit, Cavalpha is retained in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) through mechanisms that are still poorly understood. Here, we have investigated, by a quantitative method based on the use of CD8 alpha chimeras, the molecular determinants of Cavalpha2.1 that are responsible for the retention, in the absence of auxiliary subunits, of P/Q calcium channels in the ER (referred to here as 'ER retention'). This study demonstrates that the I-II loop of Cavalpha2.1 contains multiple ER-retention determinants beside the beta subunit association domain. In addition, the I-II loop is not the sole domain of calcium channel retention as two regions identified for their ability to interact with the I-II loop, the N- and C-termini of Cavalpha2.1, also produce ER retention. It is also not an obligatory determinant as, similarly to low-threshold calcium channels, the I-II loop of Cavalpha1.1 does not produce ER retention in COS7 cells. The data presented here suggests that ER retention is suppressed by sequential molecular events that include: (i). a correct folding of Cavalpha in order to mask several internal ER-retention determinants and (ii). the association of other proteins, including the Cavbeta subunit, to suppress the remaining ER-retention determinants
The globalization of U.S. business investment
No full textThis paper documents some key facts about foreign direct investment flows by U.S. businesses overseas and foreign businesses in the United States. We show how the pattern of flows has evolved, examine the sources and destination of these flows, document associated employment and productivity gains, and show how investment-related sales compare with traditional exports. While the United States is a net debtor to the rest of the world, direct investment overseas by U.S. businesses exceeds direct investment in the U.S. by foreign businesses. Furthermore, U.S. businesses seem to earn more on their foreign investments than foreign firms earn on their U.S. investments. The globalization of business investment is a long-standing phenomenon, but it has accelerated in recent years and become a source of concern for some, as it is intimately related to the debate on offshore outsourcing. Yet contrary to what some think, the bulk of U.S. investment overseas is in other high-income countries. And foreign investment in the U.S. has been an important source of employment growth in recent years.Investments, Foreign - United States
Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L
No full textPurpose: It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L. Methods: A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs. Results: Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar. Conclusions: When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably
Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L
No full textPurpose: It has been argued that generic health-related quality of life measures are not sensitive to certain disease-specific improvements; condition-specific preference-based measures may offer a better alternative. This paper assesses the validity, responsiveness and sensitivity of a cancer-specific preference-based measure, the EORTC-8D, relative to the EQ-5D-3L. Methods: A longitudinal prospective population-based cancer genomic cohort, Cancer 2015, was utilised in the analysis. EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC QLQ-C30 (which gives EORTC-8D values) were asked at baseline (diagnosis) and at various follow-up points (3 months, 6 months, 12 months). Baseline values were assessed for convergent validity, ceiling effects, agreement and sensitivity. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and similarly assessed. Multivariate regression analyses were employed to understand the determinants of the difference in QALYs. Results: Complete case analysis of 1678 patients found that the EQ-5D-3L values at baseline were significantly lower than the EORTC-8D values (0.748 vs 0.829, p < 0.001). While the correlation between the instruments was high, agreement between the instruments was poor. The baseline health state values using both instruments were found to be sensitive to a number of patient and disease characteristics, and discrimination between disease states was found to be similar. Mean generic QALYs (estimated using the EQ-5D-3L) were significantly lower than condition-specific QALYs (estimated using the EORTC-8D) (0.860 vs 0.909, p < 0.001). The discriminatory power of both QALYs was similar. Conclusions: When comparing a generic and condition-specific preference-based instrument, divergences are apparent in both baseline health state values and in the estimated QALYs over time for cancer patients. The variability in sensitivity between the baseline values and the QALY estimations means researchers and decision makers are advised to be cautious if using the instruments interchangeably
