Total	High-Blimp-1	Low-Blimp-1	P value

(n = 24)	(n = 13)	(n = 11)

Age, years

 Median	61	59	0.797

 Range	23–75	24–77

Gender

 Male	6	4	0.628

 Female	7	7

WBC, × 109/l

 Median	82.9	24.9	0.033

 Range	5.8–364.6	5.1–87

PB blast, %

 Median	68	73	0.721

 Range	1.9–93.8	18–90.8

Absolute blast counts, × 109/l

 Median	41	16	0.026

 Range	0.1–342	3–47

BM blast, %

 Median	60	64.5	0.626

 Range	1.5–88	34.5–79

Cytogeneticsa

 Adverse	6	6	0.799

 Intermediate	5	4

 Favorable	1	1

Total	High-Blimp-1	Low-Blimp-1

(n = 24)	(n = 13)	(n = 11)

Age, years

Median	61	59

Range	23–75	24–77

Gender

Male	6	4

Female	7	7

WBC, × 109/l

Median	82.9	24.9

Range	5.8–364.6	5.1–87

PB blast, %

Median	68	73

Range	1.9–93.8	18–90.8

Absolute blast counts, × 109/l

Median	41	16

Range	0.1–342	3–47

BM blast, %

Median	60	64.5

Range	1.5–88	34.5–79

Cytogeneticsa

Adverse	6	6

Intermediate	5	4

Favorable	1	1

P value

Age, years

0.797

Gender

0.628

WBC, × 109/l

0.033

PB blast, %

0.721

Absolute blast counts, × 109/l

0.026

BM blast, %

0.626

Cytogeneticsa

0.799


Variable	n or M	% or SD

Time Since Loss (months)	6.25	2.36

Severity of PGDa	23.33	10.27

Age (years)	44.30	16.07

Gender	Female	123	71.9%

 	Male	47	27.5%

Education	Less than High School	1	0.6%

 	High School	35	20.5%

 	College/Undergraduate Degree	92	53.8%

 	Graduate Degree	31	18.1%

 	Professional Degree	9	5.3%

Relationship to the Deceased	Grandparent	22	12.9%

Spouse	36	21.1%

 	Child	6	3.5%

 	Sibling	12	7%

 	Parent	59	34.5%

Friend	18	10.5%

 	Ex-Spouse/Partner	3	1.8%

 	Other	14	8.2%

Cause of Death	Suicide	12	7.0%

 	Accident	7	4.1%

 	Illness	109	63.7%

 	Natural Sudden	35	20.5%

 	Other	7	4.1%

Variable	n or M	% or SD

Cause of Death	Suicide	12	7.0%

	Accident	7	4.1%

	Illness	109	63.7%

	Natural Sudden	35	20.5%

	Other	7	4.1%


Stage	Role names	Questionable

1	17 (4.03%)	0

2	230 (54.5%)	84


Characteristics	Total (n = 412)	Men (n = 198)	Women (n = 214)

Total steps per day	8182.4 ± 3537.1	8448.4 ± 3379.5	7934.4 ± 3668.7

Total energy expenditure (kcal/day)	624.6 ± 275.1	722.7 ± 298.9*	531.7 ± 212.9

Actical total counts (per day)	186699.7 ± 104354.9	203739.6 ± 110309.5ψ	170724.9 ± 95992.9

Time in sedentary activity (actical) (min/d)	1098.1 ± 99.2	1092.8 ± 99.8	1103.0 ± 98.6

Time in light activity (actical) (min/d)	206.9 ± 59.8	204.1 ± 59.3	209.6 ± 60.3

Time in moderate activity (actical) (min/d)	131.2 ± 51.7	138.7 ± 53.3ψ	124.1 ± 49.2

Time in vigorous activity (actical) (min/d)	3.8 ± 7.8	4.3 ± 8.6	3.3 ± 7.0

Total self reported energy expenditure (MET*hr/wk)	388.6 ± 74.8	381.9 ± 77.5	394.9 ± 71.9

Characteristics	Total (n = 412)	Men (n = 198)	Women (n = 214)

Actical total counts (per day)	186699.7 ± 104354.9	203739.6 ± 110309.5ψ	170724.9 ± 95992.9

Time in sedentary activity (actical) (min/d)	1098.1 ± 99.2	1092.8 ± 99.8	1103.0 ± 98.6

Time in light activity (actical) (min/d)	206.9 ± 59.8	204.1 ± 59.3	209.6 ± 60.3

Time in moderate activity (actical) (min/d)	131.2 ± 51.7	138.7 ± 53.3ψ	124.1 ± 49.2

Time in vigorous activity (actical) (min/d)	3.8 ± 7.8	4.3 ± 8.6	3.3 ± 7.0

Total self reported energy expenditure (MET*hr/wk)	388.6 ± 74.8	381.9 ± 77.5	394.9 ± 71.9


Paramètres	ε3 (E3/E3)	ε4 (E4/E3+ E4/E4)

Nombre de sujets	31	9

Age (années)	58±7	59±7

BMI (kg/m2)	26±5	30±2*

TA (mm Hg)	15±3	14±3

Cholestérol total (mg/dl)	278	300±15

LDL cholestérol (mg/dl)	219± 27	230±25

Triglycérides (mg/dl)	120±12*	210±18*

Apo B (g/l)	135±15*	148±20*

t.Xt (%)	17	20

MCV (%)	18	20


Outcome		Rank obtained	Percentage of responders	Priority

						Post	Pre	Chi

		Post	Pre	Post	Pre	P1	P2	P3	P1	P2	P3	P

Aesthetics	Aes	1	3	100%	89%	78%	19%	3%	58%	26%	5%	<0.01

Quality of life	QoL	2	4	91%	74%	75%	6%	9%	63%	21%	0%	<0.01

Disability	Dis	3	11	91%	63%	69%	6%	16%	47%	11%	5%	<0.01

Back Pain	BP	4	7	87%	68%	63%	13%	13%	58%	16%	11%	<0.01

Psychological well-being	PWB	5		84%		66%	13%	6%	79%	5%	0%

Progression in adulthood	PiA	6	2	84%	84%	56%	28%	0%	74%	5%	16%	<0.01

Breathing function	BF	7	1	84%	95%	44%	25%	16%	63%	16%	5%	<0.01

Scoliosis Cobb degrees	SCD	8	5	84%	84%	44%	34%	6%	58%	11%	21%	<0.01

Needs of further treatments in adulthood	NTA	9	6	81%	89%	53%	22%	6%	53%	21%	0%	<0.01

Rib hump	RH	10	8	78%	84%	59%	13%	6%	42%	26%	0%	<0.01

Self control of posture		11		75%		41%	25%	9%

Perdriolle degrees	PD	12	9	75%	84%	16%	50%	9%	47%	11%	11%	<0.01

Knowledge and understanding of scoliosis		13		72%		44%	16%	13%

Movement of the vertebral column		14		72%		38%	25%	9%

Kypho-lordosis Cobb degrees	KLD	15	10	72%	68%	31%	34%	6%	58%	26%	5%	<0.01

Balance		16		69%		44%	19%	6%

Body motor awareness and learning skills		17		69%		9%	34%	25%

Sensory motor integration of the corrective pattern		18		62%		41%	16%	6%

Improved processing of vestibular input		19		59%		6%	31%	22%

Equality of weight bearing		20		56%		22%	19%	16%

Exercise efficiency		21		56%		22%	28%	6%


 	Normal controls	2-kidneys-1-clip model of hypertension	1-kidney-1-clip model of hypertension	P

Heart rate (bpm)	455.3 ± 60.8	472.5 ± 54.9	463.6 ± 55.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - baseline (mmHg)	100.9 ± 5.5	144.8 ± 13.0	152.3 ± 16.6	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - baseline (mmHg)	76.7 ± 4.3	106.4 ± 12.7	109.2 ± 8.7	0.0001

Heart rate – after atropine (bpm)	559.8 ± 58.1	575.9 ± 82.5	604.4 ± 55.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - after atropine (mmHg)	108.9 ± 6.6	152.7 ± 16.1	151.2 ± 15.3	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - after atropine (mmHg)	85.9 ± 6.0	116.0 ± 11.9	111.2 ± 8.4	<0.0001

Heart rate – after metoprolol (bpm)	463.0 ± 74.0	513.8 ± 67.6	479.3 ± 49.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - after metoprolol (mmHg)	100.2 ± 10.8	155.1 ± 14.9	151.1 ± 15.3	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - after metoprolol (mmHg)	77.3 ± 9.2	114.1 ± 13.4	111.4 ± 10.5	<0.0001

	Normal controls	2-kidneys-1-clip model of hypertension	1-kidney-1-clip model of hypertension	P

Heart rate – after metoprolol (bpm)	463.0 ± 74.0	513.8 ± 67.6	479.3 ± 49.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - after metoprolol (mmHg)	100.2 ± 10.8	155.1 ± 14.9	151.1 ± 15.3	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - after metoprolol (mmHg)	77.3 ± 9.2	114.1 ± 13.4	111.4 ± 10.5	<0.0001


GEO	Tissue type	Test sample size (n vs. c)	Sig genes DN	Reference

GSE18520	Ovary	10 vs. 53	79	[66]

GSE14407	Ovary	12 vs. 12	109	[67]

GSE764	Uterus	4 vs. 7 benign	0	Unpublished

GSE764	Uterus	4 vs. 8 malignant	2	Unpublished

GSE15471	Pancreas	39 vs. 39	120	[68]

GSE23878	Colon	24 vs. 35	74	Unpublished

GEO	Tissue type	Test sample size (n vs. c)	Sig genes DN	Reference

GSE14407	Ovary	12 vs. 12	109	[67]

GSE764	Uterus	4 vs. 7 benign	0	Unpublished

GSE764	Uterus	4 vs. 8 malignant	2	Unpublished

GSE15471	Pancreas	39 vs. 39	120	[68]

GSE23878	Colon	24 vs. 35	74	Unpublished


 	Animals	−7	−4	−1	+1	+2	+3	+4	+7	+8	+10	+11	+14

 	 	d a.i.	d a.i.	h a.i.	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi

PFT	C. psittaci	n = 18	n = 18	 	 	 	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	n = 9	n = 9	n = 6	n = 6

 	Controls	n = 18	n = 18	 	 	 	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	n = 9	n = 9	n = 6	n = 6

Blood	C. psittaci	 	 	n = 21	n = 21	n = 21	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	 	n = 9	 	n = 6

 	Controls	 	 	n = 21	n = 21	n = 21	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	 	n = 9	 	n = 6

	Animals	−7	−4	−1	+1	+2	+3	+4	+7	+8	+10	+11	+14

		d a.i.	d a.i.	h a.i.	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi

PFT	C. psittaci	n = 18	n = 18				n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	n = 9	n = 9	n = 6	n = 6

	C	n = 	n				n 	n	n 	n =		n =


Study	Subject (number)	Design	Particles	Results

Gong et al [26]	Healthy volunteers (12)Patients with mild asthma (12)	Crossover	Filtered air, Fine CAPS (174 μg/m3)	CAPS induced modest and similar increases in parasympathetic stimulation of HRV in both groups

Gong et al [42]	Healthy elderly, age (6)Elderly patients with COPD (13)	Crossover	Filtered air, Fine CAPS (200 μg/m3)	Decrease in HRV in healthy elderly but not in COPD patients

Frampton et al [40]	Healthy volunteers (40), Patients with asthma (16)	Crossover	Filtered airUltrafine carbon particles (10, 25 and 50 μg/m3)	In healthy subjects, reduced CD54 and CD18 on monocytes; decreased CD18 and CD49d on granulocytes; decreased CD25 in blood monocytes, basophils, and eosinophils; increased lymphocyte expression of CD25.In asthma, reduced CD11b on monocytes and eosinophils, CD54 on granulocytes, the percentage of CD4+ T cells, basophils, and eosinophils

Piatropaoli et al [41]	Healthy volunteers (40), Patients with asthma (16)	Crossover	Filtered airUltrafine carbon particles (10, 25 and 50 μg/m3)	No changes in airway eNO and total cell count/differentials in induced sputum; Increased percentage macrophages in the sputum of asthmatics;No changes in IL-6 and IL-8 in the sputum

Gong et al [67]	Healthy volunteers (4)Patients with mild asthma (12)	Crossover	Filtered air Coarse CAPS (157 μg/m3)	Decrease HR and PNN50 4 hours post-exposure

Stenfors et al [43]	Healthy volunteers (25)Patients with mild asthma (15)	Single-blind randomized crossover	Filtered airDiesel exhaust (PM10, 108 μg/m3)	Increased neutrophils, IL-8 and IL-6 in BAL fluid and P-selectin and VCAM-1 in bronchial biopsy, no difference between normal and asthmatics

Gong et al [44]	Healthy volunteers (14)Patients with mild asthma (17)	Crossover	Filtered airUltrafine CAPS (100 μg/m3 or 145,000/cm3 particle counts	Decreased O2sat, FEV1 and low frequency power; no differences between normal and asthmatics

Study	Subject (number)	Design

Gong et al [26]	Healthy volunteers (12)Patients with mild asthma (12)	Crossover

Gong et al [42]	Healthy elderly, age (6)Elderly patients with COPD (13)	Crossover

Frampton et al [40]	Healthy volunteers (40), Patients with asthma (16)	Crossover

Piatropaoli et al [41]	Healthy volunteers (40), Patients with asthma (16)	Crossover

Gong et al [67]	Healthy volunteers (4)Patients with mild asthma (12)	Crossover

Stenfors et al [43]	Healthy volunteers (25)Patients with mild asthma (15)	Single-blind randomized crossover

Gong et al [44]	Healthy volunteers (14)Patients with mild asthma (17)	Crossover

Particles	Results

Filtered air, Fine CAPS (174 μg/m3)	CAPS induced modest and similar increases in parasympathetic stimulation of HRV in both groups

Filtered air, Fine CAPS (200 μg/m3)	Decrease in HRV in healthy elderly but not in COPD patients

Filtered airUltrafine carbon particles (10, 25 and 50 μg/m3)	In healthy subjects, reduced CD54 and CD18 on monocytes; decreased CD18 and CD49d on granulocytes; decreased CD25 in blood monocytes, basophils, and eosinophils; increased lymphocyte expression of CD25.In asthma, reduced CD11b on monocytes and eosinophils, CD54 on granulocytes, the percentage of CD4+ T cells, basophils, and eosinophils

Filtered airUltrafine carbon particles (10, 25 and 50 μg/m3)	No changes in airway eNO and total cell count/differentials in induced sputum; Increased percentage macrophages in the sputum of asthmatics;No changes in IL-6 and IL-8 in the sputum

Filtered air Coarse CAPS (157 μg/m3)	Decrease HR and PNN50 4 hours post-exposure

Filtered airDiesel exhaust (PM10, 108 μg/m3)	Increased neutrophils, IL-8 and IL-6 in BAL fluid and P-selectin and VCAM-1 in bronchial biopsy, no difference between normal and asthmatics

Filtered airUltrafine CAPS (100 μg/m3 or 145,000/cm3 particle counts	Decreased O2sat, FEV1 and low frequency power; no differences between normal and asthmatics


Specialty	No. of clinics	No. ofpatients	% of total costrepresented by pharmacy cost(mean ± sd)	Correlation between costs including and excluding pharmacy costs1)

General 		3,807,917	32.04 ± 23	0.9


EPDnew database	Source data: type, reference or source repository	# of libraries	total tags (millions)

H. sapiens	CAGE from ENCODE/RIKEN, downloaded from UCSC genome browser database (12)	148	3841

M. musculus	CAGE from FANTOM5 (http://fantom.gsc.riken.jp/5/))	339	6236

D. melanogaster	CAGE from modENCODE (ftp://data.modencode.org/) TSS-seq from Machibase (13)	57	646

D. rerio	CAGE from Nepal et al. (14), downloaded from SRA (8), ID SRA055273	12	65

C. elegans	GRO-cap from Kruesi et al. (15)	8	236

EPDnew database	Source data: type, reference or source repository	# of libraries	total tags (millions)

H. sapiens	CAGE from ENCODE/RIKEN, downloaded from UCSC genome browser database (12)	148	3841

M. musculus	CAGE from FANTOM5 (http://fantom.gsc.riken.jp/5/))	339	6236

D. melanogaster	CAGE from modENCODE (ftp://data.modencode.org/) TSS-seq from Machibase (13)	57	646

D. rerio	CAGE from Nepal et al. (14), downloaded from SRA (8), ID SRA055273	12	65

C. elega	GRO-cap from Kruesi et al. (	8	23


Putative virus integration-harboring regionsa	SNPs	Insertions	Deletions

Chr3:140,567,185-140,575,795	26	6	2

Putative virus integration-harboring regionsa	SNPs	Insertions	Deletions

Chr6:33,823,990-33,832,089	0	0	0

Chr18:102,747-110,847	178	5	9


 	Dependent variable	P	OR	95% CI

 	AIH-1

Model 1

 HLA-DRB1∗	Different from 03 and/or 13	<0.001	8.28	3.46–19.82

03 and/or 13

 IL13 rs20541	AG plus GG	0.002	9.45	2.28–39.18

AA

 IL4RA rs1805011	AG plus GG	0.001	3.72	1.78–7.77

AA

 	IL5 rs2069812

Model 2

 Treatment suspension	Yesa	0.004	6.41	1.83–22.44

No

 	IgE levels

Model 3

 IL4 rs2227284	TT and GT	0.022	7.42	1.33–41.34

GG

	Dependent variable	P	OR	95% CI

	AIH-1

Model 1

H	Different from 03 and/or 13	<0.00	8.28	3.46

03 a

	Dependent variable	P	OR	95% CI

LA-DRB1∗	nd/or 13	1		–19.82

IL13 rs20541	AG plus GG	0.002	9.45	2.28–39.18

AA

IL4RA rs1805011	AG plus GG	0.001	3.72	1.78–7.77

AA

	IL5 rs2069812

Model 2

Treatment suspension	Yesa	0.004	6.41	1.83–22.44

No

	IgE levels

Model 3

IL4 rs2227284	TT and GT	0.022	7.42	1.33–41.34

GG


Model	Insight	Author, weblink

TECHNIQUES TO STUDY METABOLIC ADAPTATION IN SALMONELLA

S. Typhimurium metabolite profiling for different (nutrient poor, virulence induced) environments and genome-scale metabolite model	→Central carbon metabolism strongly altered (depletion in glycerol catabolism (glycerol, glycerol 3-phosphate, dihydroxyacetone phosphate, and pyruvate), increased glucose. Synthesis and uptake of polyamines (may protect Salmonella against osmotic stress inside host cells).	Kim et al., 2013

doi: 10.1039/C3MB25598K

Metabolic model and microbiology, metabolite measurements; for survival (unrelated to growth): “maintenance requirements” and “costs” (to resist host) are calculated as ATP expenditure.	→ Accumulation of metabolites in the infected gut (lactose, galactinol, melibiose, and raffinose) Salmonella and murine host lack necessary enzymes → used by Bacteroidetes and other commensals (glycosidases).	Deatherage Kaiser et al., 2013

PMID: 22168414

	→ Model predicted hundreds of virulence phenotypes with 90% accuracy.

	→ Costs become very high under excess nutrient availability

Model	Result	Author, weblink

METABOLIC MODELING TECHNIQUES

Hypothesis of nutrient-limitation during infection	→ Inactivation of Salmonella enzyme → metabolic bottleneck → overexpression of another enzyme.	Steeb et al., 2013

PMID: 23633950

Deletion effects, e.g., calculations for Δppc	→ No compensatory flux via the glyoxylate shunt.	Fong et al., 2013

PMID: 23432746

Model	Result	Author, weblink

MODELING REGULATION OF SALMONELLA METABOLISM

Boolean modeling of genes in SPI1, SPI2, and T6SS Integrated: osmolarity, glucose, iron, calcium and magnesium concentrations, growth phase-dependent stationary phase factors.	→ Description of pathogenicity island cross-talk (e.g., SPI2-secreted proteins low → activation of T6SS). → Antagonistic cross-talk (e.g., SsrAB to SciS; MviA to RcsB).	Das et al. (2013)

doi: 10.1186/1757-4749-5-28

Spatiotemporal distribution of ROS in neutrophils, macrophages carrying Salmonella and in vivo expression of ROS defense enzymes (KatG, SodAB, and host NADPH oxidase).	→ (a) Neutrophils: lethal concentrations of hydrogen peroxide	Burton et al. (2014)

→ (b) Macrophages: only sub-lethal ROS concentration during infection	PMID: 24439899


Booklet themes	Principal professionala

Aging	PT

Physical activity helps keep you physically fit	PT

Food is a prerequisite for health	PT

You can take care of problems with your health	RN

How to use medicine	RN

Coping with everyday life	OT

You do not need to feel insecure	OT

Technology in everyday life	OT

Will I lose my memory?	OT

Life events and quality of life during aging	SW

Anyone who needs help can get help	SW

Booklet themes	Principal professionala

Anyone who needs help can get help	SW


Subgroup

By age

< 40 years

40–59 years

> 59 years

By sex

Male

Female


Gene name	Cytoband	Probeset on U133A array	No. cases with LOH	No. cases without LOH	No. SNPs	Fold change with LOH	Fold change without LOH	T-test	P-value

Table 4.a.: Genes/probes with CN loss (CN = 1)

ATXN7	chr3p21.1-p12	204516_at	4	2	10	0.574	0.258	-8.233	1.333E-03


Gene symbol/lncRNA	Degree 	Style 	Type

Shmt2 	55 	Up 	Coding

NONMMUT069313 	54 	Up 	Noncoding

Vimp	54 	Down 	Coding

NONMMUT068653 	54 	Up 	Noncoding

Asap3 	53 	Up 	Coding

NONMMUT001721 	53 	Down 	Noncoding

NONMMUT067923 	53 	Up 	Noncoding

Flna	52 	Up 	Coding

XR_141418 	52 	Down 	Noncoding

Ganab	52 	Down 	Coding

Gene symbol/lncRNA	Degree	Style	Type

Shmt2	55	Up	Coding

NONMMUT069313	54	Up	Noncoding

Vim		D	Co

p	54	own	ding

NONMMUT068653	54	Up	Noncoding

Asap3	53	Up	Coding

NONMMUT001721	53	Down	Noncoding

NONMMUT067923	53	Up	Noncoding

Flna	52	Up	Coding

XR_141418	52	Down	Noncoding

Ganab	52	Down	Coding


Variable	Cases

Age, mean years	64.21 ± 18.1

Sex

Male	41 (47.1%)

Female	46 (59.9%)


Phage	Farm	Genome Size (bp)	GC Content (%)	ORFs (n)	Terminal Repeat (bp)	Promoters (n)	Terminators (n)	Accession Number

fPS-85	26	40,429	45.4	50	196	11	3	LT962380

fPS-86	28	39,024	45.6	51	215	12	4	LT961842

fPS-89	25	40,405	45.4	50	195	11	3	LT961841


	NC	HFD

Mig-6f/f	Mig-6d/d	Mig-6f/f	Mig-6d/d


Most prevalent colonizing serotype(s)	Region	Reference

Ia, Ib, II, III, V	North America, United States, Europe	Johri et al., 2006; Ippolito et al., 2010; Lamagni et al., 2013; Melin and Efstratiou, 2013; Florindo et al., 2014; Fabbrini et al., 2016

Ia	Mexico	Ippolito et al., 2010

IV, Ia	United Arab Emirates	Amin et al., 2002

V	Egypt	Shabayek et al., 2014

Ia, VI	Malaysia	Karunakaran et al., 2009; Dhanoa et al., 2010

VI, VIII	Japan	Lachenauer et al., 1999; Matsubara et al., 2002

Most prevalent colonizing serotype(s)	Region	Reference

Ia, Ib, II, III, V	North America, United States, Europe	Johri et al., 2006; Ippolito et al., 2010; Lamagni et al., 2013; Melin and Efstratiou, 2013; Florindo et al., 2014; Fabbrini et al., 2016

Ia	Mexico	Ippolito et al., 2010

IV, Ia	United Arab Emirates	Amin et al., 2002

	Egyp	Shabayek e

Most prevalent colonizing serotype(s)	Region	Reference

V	t	t al., 2014

Ia, VI	Malaysia	Karunakaran et al., 2009; Dhanoa et al., 2010

VI, VIII	Japan	Lachenauer et al., 1999; Matsubara et al., 2002


	H1	Mesendoderm	Trophoblast-like cells	Mesenchymal stem cells	Neuronal progenitor cells

1	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K23ac, H3K9ac,H3K18ac	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H3K36me3, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

2	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K23ac, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H3K36me3, H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K9me3, H3K79me1,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac

3	H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K79me1,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K18ac	H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H2aK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac

4	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me1,H3K36me3, H3K27ac,H3K23ac, H3K79me1,H3K4ac, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac, H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H2bK120ac	H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H2aK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

5	H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K9me3,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K9me3, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

6	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K27ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1	H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H2bK5ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac

7	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K9me3,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

8	H3K4me2,H2aK5ac, H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K4ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac

9	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K9me3,H3K4ac, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K79me1,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac

10	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me1,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac


GOTaxExplorer

UniProt

Pfam

SMART

PANTHER*

InterPro

BioDW

GOGraph

DynGO

GFSST†


First author	Year	Year of recruitment	Race	Stage	Pathological type	No. of Patients	HPV + veN (%)	Age, y	Genotype(s)	DNA method	Median follow-up period (months)	Hazardratio

Iwamasa	2000	1993-1995	Asian	I-II	LSCC	41	25(61.0)	69.8(+)/70.8(-)	6,11,16,18	PCR	NA	SC

Miyagi	2001	1995-1997	Asian	I-II	LA+LSCC	120	41(34.2)	LA: 67.3(+)/66.9(-)LSCC: 66.3(+)/69.7(-)	6,11,16,18	PCR	NA	SC

Hsu	2009	2000-2006	Asian	I	NSCLC	171	17(9.9)	65.2 (37-83)	16,18	IMC	56.4	SC

Wu	2012	1998-2014	Asian	I-III	NSCLC	165	74(44.8)	NA	16,18	PCR	59.3	SC

Chen	2013	2002-2007	Asian	I-III	LC	319	91(28.5)	NA	16,18	PCR	57.6	SC

Anantharaman	2014	2007-2010	Caucasian	NA	LC	62	15(24.2)	62.1	21 types*	PCR	43.44	Report

Chen	2014	1993-2014	Asian	NA	NSCLC	117	62(53.0)	NA	16,18	PCR	NA	Report

Wang	2014	2003-2011	Asian	I-IV	LA	210	74(35.2)	69.5	16,18	PCR	12.6	Report


Type of Study/Description	Advantages	Limitations

Cell culture – in vitroFood item is placed in cells or other tissues in culture conditions.	Help determine mechanisms of action.Provide clues for further investigation to define mechanisms responsible for how food components interact with host cells.	What occurs in cells may be different from what occurs in human body.Not conclusive.

Animal – in vivoFood item is fed to laboratory animals (e.g. rat, mouse, guinea pig, rabbit). Tests the effects of food on certain diseases, physiological conditions, and behaviors	Can be tightly controlled for testing the metabolism, specificity, and reproducibility of the effect of a certain food component.Tests the toxicity and safety of food components added to the diet.	Humans differ from animals in many aspects of their physiology, such as food digestion, nutrient absorption, genetics, lifestyle, etc.Not conclusive.

Case studiesOne individual’s experience with food or a food component is documented.	Help determine how certain food/components may affect clinical conditions or disorders in humans.Focus on social, psychological, or medical conditions.Provide clues for further investigation.	Not scientifically rigorous – only one person’s experience.Not conclusive but is more evidence-building.

Epidemiological/observationalGroups of subjects, typically living in one geographical area, who have developed a disease or condition are compared with a similar sample of subjects who have not developed the disease.	Address whether a certain food/component could cause a disease but not whether it did cause a disease.	Memory recall is often used to assess how a food/component might have affected an individual – long-term memory recall may not be accurate.Regionally biased – differences observed between regions may be related to different dietary of cultural preferences or genetic differences.Not conclusive but is more evidence-building.

Prospective cohort studiesA large group of individuals with a similar background who are healthy when the study begins are followed over time. Diets are assessed at the beginning, during, and end of the study. Eating habits of those who get a disease are compared to those who do not acquire a disease.	Provide clues about the risk/benefits of a given diet, food component or lack of an important vitamin/mineral (e.g., development of iron deficiency and neurodevelopmental impairment) over time.	The controls may not be similar to those who acquire a disease with respect to demographic and health factors.Not conclusive but is more evidence-building.

Randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT)Evaluates the efficacy of a specific nutritional intervention (e.g., food/component) within a population. Subjects with similar backgrounds are randomly allocated to receive either the test item or placebo.	Represents the “gold standard” for clinical trial methodology.Randomization minimizes allocation bias by balancing both known and unknown social and health factors.Sample sizes are often large to detect subtle differences in treatments, diet or food component when they exist.Provides most conclusive evidence.	Unethical to randomize breastfed infants into an infant formula feeding group.

Meta-analysisReview of the existing scientific literature. Pooled data from several studies are subjected to a statistical meta-analysis.	Meta-analysis of trials provides a more precise estimate of the treatment effect because of the increased sample size and statistical power.Results can be generalized to a larger population.Inconsistency of results across studies can be quantified and analyzed.	The validity of the meta-analysis depends on the quality of the systematic review and studies included in the analysis.If confounding variables are not controlled for in the primary studies, there will be potential bias in the meta-analysis (e.g., differing definitions of breastfeeding).


 	Reliability

Study characteristics	# of data points K	Total sample size N	Sample-weighted mean reliability (SD)	95nnnnn CI	PVASE

EDI total	2	471	.81 (.06)	.72 - .90	12.68%

EDI body dissatisfaction subscale	3	256	.77 (.14)	.62 - .92	10.66%

EDI drive for thinness subscale	4	715	.60 (.15)	.45 - .75	10.07%

EDI bulimia subscale	4	715	.64 (.12)	.53 - .76	14.12%

EAT-26	4	920	.87 (.02)	.85 - .88	100.00%

	Reliability

Study character	# of da	Total sample siz	Sample-weighted mean relia	95nnnnn	PV


S. no.	Inflammatory response/pathologic condition	Reference	Treatment dose	Radiation dose	Period of course	Drug type

1	Pneumonitis	(107)	Adriamycin: 50 mg/m2 rechallenged for two further cycles with no symptoms with steroid cover	15 Gy	2 months	Steroid

2		(108)	Adriamycin: 30 mg/m2	36 Gy	3 weeks	Steroids

3		(108)	Adriamycin: 30 mg/m2	59.4 Gy	6 weeks	Steroids

4		(109)	Paclitaxel: 175 mg/m2 rechallenged for one further cycle with no recurrence after premedication with steroids	43.2 Gy	12 days	Not specified

5		(110)	Intrapleural instillation of 30 mg of adriamycin	36.5 Gy	1 month	Steroids and diuretics

6		(111)	Mn porphyrin, MnTE-2-PyP5+ (6 mg/kg/24 h)	28 Gy	2 weeks	Antioxidant and redox-modulating Mn porphyrin

7		(112)	Genistein diet (10 mg/kg) (in combination with radiation)	10 Gy	9 fractions of 3.1 Gy over 30 days	Soy isoflavone

8		(113)	Omeprazole, esomeprazole, and lansoprazole	Radiation regimen was reformulated after 50 Gy if the lesion was extended	7 days	Proton pump inhibitors

9		(114)	Pentoxifylline (400 mg orally)	40–84 Gy	8 weeks	Anticytokine

10	Stages I–III NSCLC after radiation therapy	(80, 81)	Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)	60 Gy	During the entire course of RT (not specified for individual patient)	ACEIs

11	Radiation pneumonitis/radiation-induced fibrosis	(115)	Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor twice daily	13.5–14.75 Gy	40 consecutive days from the day of local thoracic irradiation or 40 or 80 days later	Celecoxib (an inducible enzyme)

S. no.	Inflammatory response/pathologic condition	Reference	Treatment dose	Radiation dose	Period of course	Drug type

7		(112)	Genistein diet (10 mg/kg) (in combination with radiation)	10 Gy	9 fractions of 3.1 Gy over 30 days	Soy isoflavone

8		(113)	Omeprazole, esomeprazole, and lansoprazole	Radiation regimen was reformulated after 50 Gy if the lesion was extended	7 days	Proton pump inhibitors

9		(114)	Pentoxifylline (400 mg orally)	40–84 Gy	8 weeks	Anticytokine

10	Stages I–III NSCLC after radiation therapy	(80, 81)	Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)	60 Gy	During the entire course of RT (not specified for individual patient)	ACEIs

11	Radiation pneumonitis/radiation-induced fibrosis	(115)	Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor twice daily	13.5–14.75 Gy	40 consecutive days from the day of local thoracic irradiation or 40 or 80 days later	Celecoxib (an inducible enzyme)


Factor	Items	Responses	values

Outcome variables

 Latrine ownership	Ownership of latrine	No/Yes for ownership of latrine	0/1

 Consistent latrine use

Predictor variables

Risk Perception

 Vulnerability	How high or low are the chances that you contract diarrheal disease when defecating in the open field?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

 Severity	If you have diarrheal disease because of open defecation, how severely would that impact your life?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

Attitude (affective)

	How much beneficial/important it is building Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very highyour own latrine in the one year	1 to 5

	How much beneficial/important it is to defecate using latrine regularly	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

	How much do you like to use latrine?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

	How much do you do you enjoy defecating in latrine?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

Self-efficacy (latrine ownership)Injective norm (latrine ownership)	How much ability you think you have building your own latrine in the next one year	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

Most of the people in my village think I should have my own latrine	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

People in my village will judge me if I don’t have my own	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Descriptive norm (latrine use)	Most of the people I know in the community defecate using latrine regularly	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

How many of your neighbors use latrine for defecation?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost nobody to almost all	1 to 5

	Using latrine regularly is the right thing to do because everybody does so	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Injunctive norm (latrine use)	people who are important to me approve /disapprove that you use latrine	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Defecating using latrine is regularly is something that most of the people in my village think	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

People in my village will judge me if I defecate in the open field	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Cues to action

 Exposure to Health education (HEW)		Yes/No

 Exposure to CLTSH triggering		Yes/No

Factor	Items	Responses

Outcome variables

Latrine ownership	Ownership of latrine	No/Yes for ownership of latrine

Consistent latrine use

Predictor variables

Risk Perception

Vulnerability	How high or low are the chances that you contract diarrheal disease when defecating in the open field?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high

Severity	If you have diarrheal disease because of open defecation, how severely would that impact your life?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high

Attitude (affective)

	How much beneficial/important it is building Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very highyour own latrine in the one year

	How much beneficial/important it is to defecate using latrine regularly	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high

	How much do you like to use latrine?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high

	How much do you do you enjoy defecating in latrine?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high

Self-efficacy (latrine ownership)Injective norm (latrine ownership)	How much ability you think you have building your own latrine in the next one year	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high

Most of the people in my village think I should have my own latrine	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

People in my village will judge me if I don’t have my own	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

Descriptive norm (latrine use)	Most of the people I know in the community defecate using latrine regularly	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

How many of your neighbors use latrine for defecation?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost nobody to almost all

	Using latrine regularly is the right thing to do because everybody does so	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

Injunctive norm (latrine use)	people who are important to me approve /disapprove that you use latrine	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

Defecating using latrine is regularly is something that most of the people in my village think	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

People in my village will judge me if I defecate in the open field	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree

Cues to action

Exposure to Health education (HEW)		Yes/No

Exposure to CLTSH triggering		Yes/No

values

Outcome variables

0/1

Consistent latrine use

Predictor variables

Risk Perception

1 to 5

1 to 5

Attitude (affective)

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

1 to 5

Cues to action


Variable	Mean	Median	Standard deviation	Relative standard deviation

Child survey

Percentage of overweight and obese pre-school children (5–6 years) (dependent variable)	9.31	8.60	4.19	45.02

Social index (based on parents education and employment status)	13.97	14.00	1.95	13.97

Percentage of non-German children	35.78	33.40	22.57	63.09

Percentage of non German children with insufficient German language skills	8.29	6.50	8.34	100.51

Percentage of children with measles vaccination	91.15	92.40	4.18	4.59

Percentage of children with bad dental hygiene	12.39	11.20	7.24	58.41

Percentage of children participating in regular medical check-ups	87.67	88.00	4.68	5.34

Percentage of children living in household with at least one smoking parent	36.03	37.20	10.72	29.75

Percentage of children having their own TV in bedroom	11.45	10.10	7.06	61.63

Percentage of children with poor eye-hand coordination	15.63	15.40	6.80	43.50

Percentage of German children with poor language skills	11.85	9.30	8.48	71.61

Percentage of non-German children with poor language skills	20.80	20.70	13.14	63.18

Percentage of children attending Kindergarten	89.82	90.20	5.21	5.80

Environmental variables and urban characteristics

Percentage of area with vegetation	0.22	0.17	0.16	71.25

Area of parks per km2	7.1 × 10−2	5.5 × 10−2	5.2 × 10−2	73.23

Number of parks per km2	2.2 × 10−3	2.2 × 10−3	1.2 × 10−2	55.39

Area of parks per 1000 inhabitants	15.7 × 103	11.6 × 103	13.9 × 10−3	89.21

Number of parks per 1000 inhabitants	0.00	0.00	0.00	67.86

Euclidean distance to parks	429.16	330.27	326.13	75.99

Area of playgrounds per km2	6.5 × 10−3	4.6 × 10−3	5.9 × 10−3	90.82

Number of playgrounds per km2	3.7 × 10−3	2.2 × 10−3	3.5 × 10−3	95.53

Area of playgrounds per 1000 inhabitants	9.1 × 102	8.7 × 102	3.7 × 102	40.43

Number of playgrounds per 1000 inhabitants	5.1 × 10−1	4.9 × 10−1	1.8 × 10−1	34.60

Euclidean distance to playgrounds	488.96	359.74	403.17	82.45

Number of fast food restaurants per km2	3.8 × 10−6	1.5 × 10−6	5.0 × 10−6	132.29

Number of fast food restaurants per 1000 inhabitants	4.3 × 10−1	3.6 × 10−1	2.8 × 10−1	65.05

Availability of public transport	1134.74	868.42	914.95	80.63

Walkability

Connectivity	−0.04	−0.09	1.00	−2377.29

Entropy	−0.10	0.03	1.00	−1012.31

Population density	−0.03	−0.34	1.00	−3948.53


Device	Number of Bits	Sampling Rate (GSPS)

Texas Instruments ADC12DJ3200	12	6.4

Texas Instruments ADC32RF45	14	3.0

Texas Instruments ADS54J60	16	1.0

Texas Instruments ADS1675	24	0.004


	Value

Number of patients	71

Pathologic lesion, n (%)

 Yes	42 (59.2)

 No	29 (40.8)

Indication, n (%)

 Primary staging	16 (22.5)

 Follow-up/re-staging	53 (74.6)

 Non-oncological (FUO and aortic aneurysm graft)	2 (2.8)

Tumour type, n

 Lymphoma (NHL/HD)	18 (11/7)

 Lung cancer (proved/suspicious/incidental)	13 (10/2/1)

 Breast cancer	9

 Melanoma	7

 Renal cell	3

 Oesophagus, larynx, stomach	2

 Adrenal, anal, colon, fibrosarcoma, follicular thyroid, hypopharynx, nasopharynx, oropharynx, ovarian, paraganglioma, myeloid sarcoma, mesothelioma, rectal, SCC right upper arm	1

Under therapy, n (%)

 Yes	13 (18.3)

 No	56 (78.9)

 N/A	2 (2.8)


Lipase	Porcine pancreatic lipase (PPL)	Pseudomonas sp. (PSL)	Pseudomonas fluorescens lipase (Lipase AK, AKL)	Candida cylindracea A.Y. lipase (AYL)	Candida rugosa lipase (CRL)	Novozyme 435

Activity (μmol/h/g)	2.25	0.67	1.32	0.54	0.27	1.47


PercentageEBP-K	PercentageEBP-A	PercentageEBP-P	PercentageEBP-F


Confusion Matrix	Expert Classification

Positive	Negative

Classifier classification	Positive	TP = 19,050	FP = 3772

Negative	FN = 950	TN = 76,228

Confusion Matrix	Positive	Negative

Classifier classification	Positive	TP = 19,050	FP = 3772

Negative	FN = 950	TN = 76,228


Associated risk factors	BAB	PAB	VAB

<underline>Individual factors</underline>

Age (years) 85 and over		+

Male gender	+	+	+

Functionally independent			+

Mild-moderate or severe cognitive impairment	+	+	+

Sleep disturbance	+	+	+

Psychologically distressed	+	+

<underline>Environmental factors</underline>

Use of benzodiazepine drugs			+

Use of neuroleptic drugs	+	+	+

Use of physical restraints	+

Associated risk factors	BAB	PAB	VAB

Individual factors

Age (years) 85 and over		+

Male gender	+	+	+

Functionally independent			+

Mild-moderate or severe cognitive impairment	+	+	+

Sleep disturbance	+	+	+

Psychologically distressed	+	+

Environment

al factors

Use of benzodiazepine drugs			+

Use of neuroleptic drugs	+	+	+

Use of physical restraints	+


	N	Yes (%)

“Access to his/her diabetes EMR via a web portal ...”	128

 stimulates the self-management and self-correcting behaviour of the patient		75.8

 improves communication during consultation with a well prepared patient		44.5

 results in saving time		21.9

 results in deceased workload		10.9

“I write the medical information...”	128

 as I always did		63.3

 in an easier language than before		37.5

 with less information than before		7.8

“I think that patients who use the patient portal...”	122

 have an increased frequency of visits		2.5

 have an unchanged frequency of visits		80.3

 have a decreased frequency of visits		17.2

“How do you feel about patients sending you an e-message?”	128

 (very) positive		65.6

 neutral		28.1

 (very) negative		6.3

“How many e-messages do you receive per week?”	124

 0 messages		33.1

 1–10 messages		59.7

 ≥ 11messages		7.3

“Who usually answers the e-message of patients?”	80a

 the health care provider answers only the messages of his/her own patients		31.3

 the physician (GP or internist) answers all messages		2.5

 the nurse (nurse practitioner or diabetes nurse) answers all messages		66.3


Socio-demographic characteristics	Frequency	Percentage

LGA

 Idemili South	70	46.4

 Onitsha South	81	53.6

Groups

 Mothers of women who delivered 6 months before study	79	52

 Husbands of women who delivered 6 months before study	72	48

Marital status

 Married	147	97.4

 Widowed	4	2.6

Educational level

 No formal education	6	4

 Primary	55	36.4

 Secondary	75	49.7

 Post-secondary	15	9.9

Occupation

 Unemployed	42	28

 Civil servant	44	29

 Trader	45	30

 Artisan	20	13

Age group

 35-39	24	15.9

 40-44	29	19.2

 45-49	36	23.8

 50-54	26	17.2

 55+	36	23.8


Variables	LVEF ≤ 25%

115 patients

Braden score	14.4 ± 2.6

Total Glasgow coma score	12.1 ± 3.9

Heart rate (beats/minute)	88.6 ± 17.8

Diastolic NBP (mmHg)	59.2 ± 12.0

Systolic NBP (mmHg)	110.2 ± 16.9

Respiratory rate (breaths/minute)	21.0 ± 4.8

Oxygen saturation (%)	96.8 ± 3.9

Temperature (°C)	36.6 ± 0.8

Blood urea nitrogen (mg/dL)	37.6 ± 26.4

Carbon dioxide (mmol/L)	22.9 ± 5.0

Glucose (mg/dL)	172.2 ± 78.1

Hemoglobin (mmol/L)	11.9 ± 2.4

Platelets (×103 cells/μL)	244.2 ± 112.5

Potassium (mmol/L)	4.3 ± 0.6

Sodium (mmol/L)	137.8 ± 5.2

White blood cells (×103 cells/μL)	12.7 ± 5.6

Age (years)	70.6 ± 15.1

Weight on admission (kg)	77.1 ± 18.6

SAPS I score on admission	13.9 ± 5.9

SOFA score on admission	6.3 ± 4.2

Males (%)	74 (64.4)


Compound	Catechol	Phenol	Total

Yield [% w/w]	5.7 ± 0.1	3.9 ± 0.1	9.6 ± 0.3

Content (mM)	101	25	126

Compound	Catechol	Phenol	Total

Yield [% w/w]	5.		9.


SUV	Myocardium	Muscle

SUV 7.5 min p.i.

TGwt	9.6 ± 2.2	0.5 ± 0.1


Patient no.	FOXP3	OX40	CD123	DC-LAMP

SLN	NSLN	SLN	NSLN	SLN	NSLN	SLN	NSLN

1	1958	957	193	65	232	280	818	660


Item	Points	Definition

Pain	25	No pain

	20	Mild, occasional

	15	Moderate (tolerable)

	0	Severe, intolerable

Return to sport (work) at 6 months	25	Return without protection

	20	Return with protection

	15	Restricted return to sport, only exercises

	0	Unable to return to sport

Range of motion	25	90-100% (normal)

	20	80-89%

	15	70-70%

	0	50-69%

Grip strength	25	90-100% (normal)

	15	80-89%

	10	70-70%

	0	50-69%

Item	Points

Pain	25

	20

	15

	0

Return to sport (work) at 6 months	25

	20

	15

	0

Range of motion	25

	20

	15

	0

Grip strength	25

	15

	10

	0

Definition

No pain

Mild, occasional

Moderate (tolerable)

Severe, intolerable

Return without protection

Return with protection

Restricted return to sport, only exercises

Unable to return to sport

90-100% (normal)

80-89%

70-70%

50-69%

90-100% (normal)

80-89%

70-70%

50-69%


 	Infants (younger than or equal to 1-year old)	Older patients (older than 1-year old)	P value

Number of cases	18	108

Gender (M/F)	10/8	72/36

Age range (median)	0.66 	4.8

Histology (%)	 	 	0.45

 Embryonal	88.9	75.9

 Alveolar	11.1	24.1

Site of origin (%)	 	 	0.28

 Head and neck (%)

Parameningeal	11.1	30.6

Orbit	11.1	7.4

Head and neck (nonpara nonorbit)	5.6	13

GU

 Bladder/prostate	11.1	12

 Nonbladder/nonprostate	11.1	7.4

 Extremities	11.1	11.1

 Others	38.9	18.5

TNM stage (%)

 N1	5.6	38.9

 M1	11.1	19.4

Size (%)	 	 	0.928

 >5	55.6	57.4

 ≤5	38.9	33.3

 Unknown	5.5	9.3

IRS stage (%)	 	 	0.34

 I	27.8	24.6

 II	27.8	15.1

 III	33.3	42.1

 IV	11.1	18.3

Clinical group (%)	 	 	0.74

 I	11	9

 II	6	4

 III	72	68

 IV	11	19

Risk (%)	 	 	0.64

 Low	22.2	15.7

 Intermediate	66.7	65.7

 High	11.1	18.6

	Infants (younger than or equal to 1-year old)	Older patients (older than 1-year old)	P value

isk (%)			0.64

Low	22.2	15.7

Intermediate	66.7	65.7

High	11.1	18.6


Reexposure Test Result	Hepatocellular Injury	Cholestatic or Mixed Liver Injury

ALTb	ALTr	ALPb	ALPr

●Positive	<5N	≥2ALTb	<2N	≥2ALPb

●Negative	<5N	<2ALTb	<2N	<2ALPb

●Negative	≥5N	≥2ALTb	≥2N	≥2ALPb

●Negative	≥5N	<2ALTb	≥2N	<2ALPb

●Uninterpretable	<5N	n.a.	<2N	n.a.

●Uninterpretable	n.a.	≥2ALTb	n.a.	≥2ALPb

●Uninterpretable	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.

Reexposure Test Result	Hepatocellular Injury	Cholestatic or Mixed Liver Injury

ALTb	ALTr	ALPb	ALPr

●Positive	<5N	≥2ALTb	<2N	≥2ALPb

●Negative	<5N	<2ALTb	<2N	<2ALPb

●Negative	≥5N	≥2ALTb	≥2N	≥2ALPb

●Negat			≥	<

ive	≥5N	<2ALTb	2N	2ALPb

●Uninterpretable	<5N	n.a.	<2N	n.a.

●Uninterpretable	n.a.	≥2ALTb	n.a.	≥2ALPb

●Uninterpretable	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.


Decades	# cites	Paper	Domain	Institution	Country

1945 to 1954	-	All cited articles only cited once	-	-	-

1955 to 1964	9	Wilkening, E. A. (1952, May). 'Acceptance of improved farm practices in three coastal plains countries.' Technical Bulletin 98. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.	Diffusion of innovation	University of Chicago	USA

1965 to 1974	36	Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. First Edition. New York: The Free Press.	Diffusion of innovation	Ohio State University, United States	USA

1975 to 1984	70	Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach.* New York: The Free Press	Diffusion of innovation	Stanford University/University of Denver	USA

1985 to 1994	89	Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Third Edition. New York: The Free Press.	Diffusion of innovation	University of Southern California	USA

1995 to 2004	229	Evidence-based Medicine Working Group (1992). 'Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.' JAMA, 268(17), 2420–2425.	EBM	McMaster University	Canada

Decades	# cites	Paper	Domain	Institution	Country

1945 to 1954	-	All cited articles only cited once	-	-	-

195	9	Wilkening, E. A. (1952, May	Diffusion of	University of Chicag

5 to 1964		). 'Acceptance of improved farm practices in three coastal plains countries.' Technical Bulletin 98. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.	 innovation	o	USA

1965 to 1974	36	Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. First Edition. New York: The Free Press.	Diffusion of innovation	Ohio State University, United States	USA

1975 to 1984	70	Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach.* New York: The Free Press	Diffusion of innovation	Stanford University/University of Denver	USA

1985 to 1994	89	Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Third Edition. New York: The Free Press.	Diffusion of innovation	University of Southern California	USA

1995 to 2004	229	Evidence-based Medicine Working Group (1992). 'Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.' JAMA, 268(17), 2420–2425.	EBM	McMaster University	Canada


Characteristics	Death during treatmentN (%)	Alive throughout treatmentN (%)	p value

N	37	528

Mean age at diagnosis ± SD	45.0 ± 16.2	40.7 ± 13.5	0.03

 Median (Min-Max)	41 (22-88)	38 (18-94)

Male Gender	29 (78.4)	423 (80.1)	0.95

Race	American Indian	0	9 (1.7)	0.99

	African American/Black	13 (35.1)	187 (35.4)	0.97

	Asian/Pacific Islander	1 (2.7)	10 (1.9)	0.73

	White	23 (62.2)	322 (61.0)	Ref

Hispanic ethnicity	7 (18.9)	159 (30.1)	0.16

US born	31 (83.8)	364 (68.9)	0.03

HIV positive	24 (64.9)	180 (34.1)	0.02

 HAART during tuberculosis therapy	1/24 (4.2)	27/180 (15.0)	0.10

 History of opportunistic infection	21/24 (87.5)	101/180 (56.1)	0.01

 CD4 count

≤ 200 cells/μL1	17/19 (89.5)	108/156 (69.2)	0.14

Median CD4 count at diagnosis (IQR)1	68 (34-104)	105 (47-269)	0.06

Received directly observed therapy2	Yes	28 (75.7)	251 (47.7)	0.02

	Partial*	4 (10.8)	90 (17.1)	0.67

	No	5 (13.5)	185 (35.2)	Ref

Episode of inadequate therapeutic regimen	25 (67.6)	161 (30.5)	0.01

During intensive phase3	24 (64.9)	129/525 (24.6)	0.001

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 153)	23 (6-35)	18 (9-34)	0.18

During continuation phase4	10/33 (30.3)	116/523 (22.2)	0.44

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 126)	37 (24-50)	29 (13-50)	0.24

 Due to non-adherence	22 (59.5)	142 (26.9)	0.01

During intensive phase3	21 (56.8)	109/525 (20.8)	0.001

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 130)	8 (5-28)	15 (7-24)	0.13

During continuation phase4	10/33 (30.3)	108/523 (20.7)	0.64

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 118)	30 (16-50)	29 (14-53)	0.11

 Due to adverse reaction5	10 (27.0)	49/527 (9.3)	0.10

During intensive phase5	7 (18.9)	39/527 (7.4)	0.21

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 46)	29 (8-39)	14 (6-38)	0.75

During continuation phase5	3 (8.1)	18/527 (3.4)	0.98

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 21)	25 (1-31)	14 (7-20)	0.40

Hospitalized for tuberculosis6	29 (78.4)	253/526 (48.1)	0.003

Homeless within 1 year of diagnosis7	16/27 (59.3)	138/356 (38.8)	0.04

Substance abuse at diagnosis	23 (62.2)	228 (43.2)	0.13

Sputum smear positive	27 (73.0)	233 (44.1)	0.004

Sputum culture positive	34 (91.9)	471 (89.2)	0.62

Extrapulmonary disease in addition to pulmonary disease	18 (48.7)	143 (27.1)	0.13

Cavitary disease	4 (10.8)	129 (24.4)	0.12

Any prior medical condition	25 (67.6)	288 (54.6)	0.13


Variable	Alive	Dead of Disease	Dead other Causes	p-value

Surgical Approach, n (%)				<0.0001

	Adrenalectomy	374 (88.6)	437 (63.8)	111 (67.7)

	None	36 (8.5)	212 (30.9)	41 (25.0)

	Other	11 (2.6)	30 (4.4)	9 (5.5)


AQP4 Isoforms	Cell Type	Intracellular Localization	Reference

AQP4a (M1)	Astrocytes	PM	[85,90,95]

AQP4c (M23)	Astrocytes, skeletal muscle, kidney	PM	[85,90,95]

AQP4e (Mz)	Astrocytes (rat), organ of Corti (rat)	PM, intracellular vesicles, GA, EC	[72,89,96]

AQP4b	Astrocytes (rat)	GA	[89]

AQP4d	Astrocytes (rat)	GA, EC	[72,89]

AQP4f	Astrocytes (rat)	GA	[89]

AQP4-Δ	Skeletal muscle	ER, faintly in the PM	[91]

AQP4 Isoforms	Cell Type	Intracellular Localization	Reference

AQP4a (M1)	Astrocytes	PM	[85,90,95]

AQP4c (M23)	Astrocytes, skeletal muscle, kidney	PM	[85,90,95]

A	Astrocytes (r	PM, intrace

QP4e (Mz)	at), organ of Corti (rat)	llular vesicles, GA, EC	[72,89,96]

AQP4b	Astrocytes (rat)	GA	[89]

AQP4d	Astrocytes (rat)	GA, EC	[72,89]

AQP4f	Astrocytes (rat)	GA	[89]

AQP4-Δ	Skeletal muscle	ER, faintly in the PM	[91]


Risk Factors

Ever injected drugs

No

Yes

Ever sharing syringe

No

Yes

Steady partner

No

Yes

Ever had sex in the past month

No

Yes

Condom use in the last sex intercourse

Never or no sex

Yes

Ever had commercial sex

No

Yes

Frequency of condom use in commercial sex

Always or no sex

Sometimes

Never

HIV

No

Yes

HCV

No

Yes

Syphilis

No

Yes


	Prakasam district	Azamgarh district

	Sex worker	Casual unpaid partner	Any partner#	Sex worker	Casual unpaid partner	Any partner#

	%	%	%	%	%	%

Total sample size	633	633	633	639	639	639

Migrants who never had sex	75.0	44.9	42.0	75.9	54.1	48.8

Migrants who initiated sex in place of origin	9.8	42.5	43.4	7.5	42.7	43.7

Migrants who initiated sex in place of destination	15.2	12.6	14.5	16.6	3.1	7.5

p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Number who initiated sex in place of origin	62	269	275	48	273	279

Had sex in destination after initiating at place of origin [total]	59.7	39.4	46.9	49.0	23.5	47.7

Had sex in destination only	19.4	6.7	6.9	29.2	2.6	9.0

Had sex both in destination and in origin during their migration	40.3	32.7	40.0	18.8	20.9	38.7

Had sex in only origin areas during their migration	16.1	39.4	32.7	43.8	53.1	35.5

Did not have sex in any area during migration after they first had sex before migration	24.2	21.2	20.4	8.3	23.4	16.9

Number who initiated sex in place of destination	96	80	92	106	20	48

Had sex in destination areas only but not in origin	45.8	56.3	54.4	85.9	75.0	79.2

Had sex in both destination and origin areas	54.2	43.8	45.7	14.2	25.0	20.8


Calcination temperature (°C)	Time (min)	Sheet resistance (mΩ/□)

400	30	7.4

350	30	27.2

300	30	41.3

300	60	40.6


	2D matrix	Navg	Nti

EPSI	32 × 32	4	1

Re‐CRT	32 × 32	4	2

DW‐CRT with α = 1	32 × 32	1	2

DW‐CRT with α = 1.71	32 × 32	1	2

Re‐CRT	48 × 48	4	2

DW‐CRT with α = 1	48 × 48	1	2


	E.coli	S.typhimurium	Y.pestis	Y.enterocolitica	P.luminescens

E.coli	***	66.7	28.6	33.3	52.4


AE	Lacidipine (n = 162)	Amlodipine (n = 153)

Nervous system

 Headache	3 (1.9)	6 (3.9)

 Dizziness	2 (1.2)	1 (0.7)

 Drowsiness	0	1 (0.7)

 Hoarseness	0	0

 Tremor	0	0

Cardiovascular system

 Chest discomfort	0	0

 Dyspnea	1 (0.6)	0

 Palpitation	1 (0.6)	1 (0.7)

 Syncope	0	0

General

 Fatigue	0	1 (0.7)

 Facial flushing	2 (1.2)	5 (3.3)

 Edema, low extremity	1 (0.6)	5 (3.3)

 Dry mouth	0	0

Skin

 Rash	1 (0.6)	0

Laboratory

 AST/ALT elevation	0	1 (0.7)

 Dyslipidemia	1 (0.6)	2 (1.3)

 Anemia	0	0

Total patients

 With at least 1 AE	12 (7.4)	17 (11.1)

 With no AEs	150 (92.6)	136 (88.9)

 Withdrawn due to AEs	3 (1.9)	3 (2.0)

AE	Lacidipine (n = 162)	Amlodipine (n = 153)

With at least 1 AE	12 (7.4)	17 (11.1)

With no AEs	150 (92.6)	136 (88.9)

Withdrawn due to AEs	3 (1.9)	3 (2.0)


Species	Number of Retrocopies	Number of Parental Genes

Human	7,831	2,570

Chimpanzee	7,478	2,560

Gorilla	7,706	2,669

Orangutan	6,873	2,439

Rhesus	7,502	2,453

Marmoset	10,465	3,067

Squirrel monkey	9,320	2,864

Mouse	7,109	2,205

Rat	7,364	2,114


	HVLP groupN = 20

Age (years)	61.8 ± 12.9

Gender (male/female)	10/10

Body weight (kg)	59.4 ± 13.7

Height (cm)	161.6 ± 7.5

BMI (kg/m2)	22.6 ± 4.6

Mallampati score (1/2/3/4)	8/11/1/0

Cormack-Lehane grade (1/2/3/4)	11/8/1/0

Tracheal tube size (7.0/7.5/8.0/8.5)	2/11/6/1


Composition	Concentration

Sodium chloride (NaCl)	140 mM

HEPES	10 mM

Glucose	10 mM

Potassium chloride (KCl)	5 mM

Magnesium chloride (MgCl2)	1 mM

Calcium chloride (CaCl2)	1 mM

pH 7.4

300 mOsm (310 for SMG)


	Child normal weight	Child overweight*†	Child obese†

	(n = 7349; 85%)	(n = 1272; 15%)	(n = 264; 3%)

Sociodemographic factors

 Male sex (%)	51.2	44.8‡	46.2‡

 Both parents born outside Sweden (%)	28.7	28.8	34.2‡

 Mother low education (%)	13.2	13.8	19.9‡

 Father low education (%)	14.3	15.6	22.1‡

 Firstborn (%)	46.1	44.8	41.9

 No day care (%)	4.6	4.1	7.5

 Crowded living (%)	10.8	11.1	15.5‡

 Not taken part of parental education (%)	47.4	49.7	54.4‡

Parental overweight

 Mother overweight (%)	27.3	37.6‡	49.3‡

 Father overweight (%)	52.1	69.3‡	73.7‡

 Both parents overweight (%)	17.0	29.1‡	40.0‡

Life style factors

 Child's intake of sweetened beverages (%)	10.5	12.0	12.7

 Secondhand tobacco smoke at 4 years of age (%)	22.6	26.4‡	32.6‡

Early life factors

 Mother smoking during pregnancy (%)	9.6	13.6‡	20.0‡

 Secondhand tobacco smoke at 0-4 weeks (%)	22.3	26.1‡	33.6‡

 Secondhand tobacco smoke at 8 months (%)	24.8	28.2‡	37.0‡

 High birth weight (>4000 g) (%)	15.8	24.0‡	25.6‡

 Not breastfed (%)	3.9	5.0	6.5‡

Economic and psychosocial factors (%)

 Parental low emotional support (%)	21.1	22.3	26.3

 Parental low practical support (%)	29.8	29.5	28.9

 Parental economic stress (%)	6.1	8.0‡	9.6‡

	Child normal weight	Child overweight*†

	(n = 7349; 85%)	(n = 1272; 15%)

Sociodemographic factors

Male sex (%)	51.2	44.8‡

Both parents born outside Sweden (%)	28.7	28.8

Mother low education (%)	13.2	13.8

Father low education (%)	14.3	15.6

Firstborn (%)	46.1	44.8

No day care (%)	4.6	4.1

Crowded living (%)	10.8	11.1

Not taken part of parental education (%)	47.4	49.7

Parental overweight

Mother overweight (%)	27.3	37.6‡

Father overweight (%)	52.1	69.3‡

Both parents overweight (%)	17.0	29.1‡

Life style factors

Child's intake of sweetened beverages (%)	10.5	12.0

Secondhand tobacco smoke at 4 years of age (%)	22.6	26.4‡

Early life factors

Mother smoking during pregnancy (%)	9.6	13.6‡

Secondhand tobacco smoke at 0-4 weeks (%)	22.3	26.1‡

Secondhand tobacco smoke at 8 months (%)	24.8	28.2‡

High birth weight (>4000 g) (%)	15.8	24.0‡

Not breastfed (%)	3.9	5.0

Economic and psychosocial factors (%)

Parental low emotional support (%)	21.1	22.3

Parental low practical support (%)	29.8	29.5

Parental economic stress (%)	6.1	8.0‡


Season	Similarity (%)	Nseqs	Sobs

amoA D∗	90	87	7

amoA T∗∗	90	82	3


Artery size measurement method	Tortuosity < 0.1	All subjects


Pathway name	# input genes in the pathway	P value

Long adhesion	13	1.02E − 06

Long-term depression	6	3.85E − 04

ECM-receptor interaction	6	6.59E − 04

Small cell lung cancer	5	0.004769

Regulation of actin cytoskeleton	8	0.005003

Prostate cancer	5	0.005006

Tight junction	6	0.007175

Melanoma	4	0.012134

Bladder cancer	3	0.015551

MAPK signaling pathway	8	0.016136

Axon guidance	5	0.022646

Endometrial cancer	3	0.027335

mTOR signaling pathway	3	0.027335

Gap junction	4	0.02851

Insulin signaling pathway	5	0.029243

Non-small cell lung cancer	3	0.030129

GnRH signaling pathway	4	0.031564

Alzheimer's disease	2	0.033214

Wnt signaling pathway	5	0.03603

p53 signaling pathway	3	0.048047

Glioma	3	0.048047

Cell cycle	4	0.048272

B cell receptor signaling pathway	3	0.049885

Long-term potentiation	2	0.049885

Neurodegenerative diseases	2	0.050764

Wnt signaling pathway	7	0.001962

B cell receptor signaling pathway	4	0.00836

VEGF signaling pathway	4	0.011283

Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity	5	0.01976

Hedgehog signaling pathway	3	0.026203

Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction	7	0.036606

T cell receptor signaling pathway	4	0.037492

Dorsoventral axis formation	2	0.039028


Experimental Model/Method	Exposure	Mechanism of Resveratrol	Dosage of Resveratrol	Duration of Resveratrol Treatment	Reference

PC12 cells	Aβ25–35 induced	attenuated Aβ-induced cytotoxicity, apoptotic features, and intracellular ROI accumulation.	25 μM	24 h	[13]

PC12 cells	Aβ25–35 induced	inhibited the cell apoptosis	12.5–100 μM	24–48 h	[14]

prevented the LDH leakage

maintained the intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis

Purified baculovirus-expressed BACE-1	-	inhibition of BACE-1	11.9 μM (IC50)	-	[30]

TRF assay	-	inhibition of BACE-1	28 μM (IC50)	30 min	[31]

Neuro2a cells HEK293	transfected with a plasmid containing APPsw	reduced γ-secretase activity	2.5–20 μM	24 h	[32]

induced MMP-9 activation

autophagy-related 5 knockdown HEK293	-	induced conversion of LC3-I to LC3-II	60 μM	24 h	[33]

suppression of Presenilin-1 induction

suppressed Aβ production

SK-N-SH cells	-	induction of NEP and ACE activity	10 μM	4 days	[34]

Hippocampal samples from AD patients	AD	binds to both fibril and monomer Aβ	1.56–100 μM	-	[35]

Experimental Model/Method	Exposure	Mechanism of Resveratrol	Dosage of Resveratrol	Duration of Resveratrol Treatment	Reference

autophagy-related 5 knockdown HEK293	-	suppression of Presenilin-1 induction	60 μM	24 h	[33]

suppressed Aβ production

SK-N-SH cells	-	induction of NEP and ACE activity	10 μM	4 days	[34]

Hippocampal samples from AD patients	AD	binds to both fibril and monomer Aβ	1.56–100 μM	-	[35]


Variable	Significance (p)	Relative risk	95% CI

Diabetes mellitus	0.009	4.0232	1.417–11.424

Duration of dialysis (years)	0.008	1.2499	1.059–1.475


Variable

Age (years)

Education (years)

Number of pregnancies

Number of children

Number of months previous breastfeeding (cumulative lifetime)

BMI (kg/m2)

Energy intake (kcal/day)

Calcium intake (mg/day)

Hematocrit (%)

NTx (nM BCE/mM creatinine)c


	"Successful" States	"Unsuccessful" States

Political arrangement	Varied: democracy (Senegal, multiparty), authoritarian (Uganda)	Varied: democracy (multiparty, Zambia), others including authoritarian (Namibia, Ethiopia)

Institutional structures	Centralised (now decentralising)	Varied (decentralised and centralised)

Technology achieved	STIs, some ARV through centralised institution	Some behaviour/education, centralised STIs, sparse centralised ARVs


Autoimmune disease	Autoimmune target	Mean age of onset (range) years	Female:male ratio	Reference

Mid-adult onset

Multiple sclerosis	Myelin sheath	37 (25–45)	1.8:1	(205)

Myasthenia gravis	Neuromuscular junction	40	2.7:1	(205)

Systemic lupus erythematosus	Nuclear contents (systemic)	40 (30–50)	9:1	(205, 206)

Neuromyelitis optica	Optic nerve/spinal cord	32.6–45.7	2.4:1ratio highest after age 65	(207, 208)

Graves’ disease	Thyroid	48	7.3:1	(205)

Systemic sclerosis	Connective tissue (systemic)	50 (35–65)	11.5:1	(209)

Late-adult onset

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) (formerly Wegener’s granulomatosis)	Cytoplasmic contents of neutrophils (systemic, vascular)	55 (40–70)	1:1M > F after age 70	(205)

Rheumatoid arthritis	Joints	58 (42–74)	3:1	(210)

Polymyalgia rheumatica	Selected muscle groups	70–80	2.3:1	(211)

Giant cell arteritis	Vascular system	70–80	2.3:1	(211)

Autoimmune disease	Autoimmune target	Mean age of onset (range) years	Female:male ratio	Reference

Systemic lupus erythematosus	Nuclear contents (systemic)	40 (30–50)	9:1	(205, 206)

Neuromyelitis optica	Optic nerve/spinal cord	32.6–45.7	2.4:1ratio highest after age 65	(207, 208)

Graves’ disease	Thyroid	48	7.3:1	(205)

Systemic sclerosis	Connective tissue (systemic)	50 (35–65)	11.5:1	(209)

Late-adult onset

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) (formerly Wegener’s granulomatosis)	Cytoplasmic contents of neutrophils (systemic, vascular)	55 (40–70)	1:1M > F after age 70	(205)

Rheumatoid arthritis	Joints	58 (42–74)	3:1	(210)

Polymyalgia rheumatica	Selected muscle groups	70–80	2.3:1	(211)

Giant cell arteritis	Vascular system	70–80	2.3:1	(211)


	ARC	WHOQOL-BREF	Social Network

Variable	Personal	Social	Physical	Psych	Social	Enviro	Group substance use	Non-using groups identification	Heavy using groups identification	Non-using groups importance

ARC

 Personal	–

 Social	.87***	–

WHOQOL-BREF

 Physical	.74***	.54**	–

 Psychological	.62**	.52*	.61**	–

 Social	.39†	.52*	.24	.68***	–

 Environmental	.58**	.72***	.49*	.46*	.41†	–

Social Network

 Groups substance use status	-.50*	-.47*	-.39	-.10	.02	-.44†	–

 Non-using groups identification	.37	.44†	.24	.03	.05	.53*	-.81***	–

 Heavy-using groups identification	-.32	-.29	-.25	-.08	-.14	-.38	.66**	-.41	–

 Non-using groups importance	.33	.38†	.26	-.07	-.08	.48*	-.88***	.94***	-.44†	–

 Heavy-using groups importance	-.43†	-.39†	-.38†	-.10	-.08	-.47*	.67**	-.42†	.90***	-.47*

	ARC	WHOQOL-BREF	Social Network

Variable	Personal	Social	Physical	Psych	Social	Enviro	Group substance use	Non-using groups identification	Heavy using groups identification	Non-using groups importance

Social Network

Groups substance use status	-.50*	-.47*	-.39	-.10	.02	-.44†	–

Non-using groups identification	.37	.44†	.24	.03	.05	.53*	-.81***	–

Heavy-using groups identification	-.32	-.29	-.25	-.08	-.14	-.38	.66**	-.41	–

Non-using groups importance	.33	.38†	.26	-.07	-.08	.48*	-.88***	.94***	-.44†	–

Heavy-using groups importance	-.43†	-.39†	-.38†	-.10	-.08	-.47*	.67**	-.42†	.90***	-.47*


Study		Number	Metabolic syndrome	Htn	High TG	Impaired FBS	Low HDL	High WC

Iran	Gorgan	100	31%	16%	16%	17%	30%	29%


Genome Effect

Changes in ploidy (mostly WGD)

Alteration of epigenetic modifications to the genome

Alterations in expression patterns across the genome

Activation and spread of mobile DNA elements

Genome restructuring involving mobile DNA elements

Changes in chromosome structure and karyotype

Alteration of tandem repetitive DNA arrays and centromeres


Determinant	Ready to enroll/re-enroll, n (%)	P-Value	COR	AOR

Region CHF enrolment rate

Low	186(81.6)	0.513	1

High	190(81.9)		1.0(0.6-1.6)

Locality

Rural	185(78.7)	0.056	1	1

Urban	191(84.9)		1.5(0.9-2.5)a	1.5(0.9-2.4)

Sex


All subjects (N=30)	6.25-12.5 Hz	12.5-25 Hz	25-50 Hz

Global Efficiency	-0.13	-0.25	0.15

Local Efficiency	-0.21	-0.33	0.08

Interdensity	-0.15	-0.13	0.02

Intradensity Unaffected Hemi	-0.26	* -0.46	-0.07

Intradensity Affected Hemi	-0.07	-0.14	0.23

Cortex Subjects (N=17)

Global Efficiency	-0.05	* -0.60	0.08

Local Efficiency	-0.26	* -0.66	-0.20

Interdensity	0.08	-0.21	0.01

Intradensity Unaffected Hemi	-0.24	* -0.75	-0.40

Intradensity Affected Hemi	0.04	-0.39	0.49

All subjects (N=30)	6.25-12.5 Hz	12.5-25 Hz	25-50 Hz

Local Efficiency	-0.26	* -0.66	-0.20

Interdensity	0.08	-0.21	0.01

Intradensity Unaffected Hemi	-0.24	* -0.75	-0.40

Intradensity Affected Hemi	0.04	-0.39	0.49


Significant consensus genes from continuous and extreme data, excluding children data	No. of overlap	No. not overlapping	% Overlap

Single-probe analysis	232	9085	2.49

Region analysis	39	364	9.70

Significant consensus genes from continuous and extreme data, excluding children data

Single-probe analysis

Region analysis

No. of overlap	No. not overlapping	% Overlap

232	9085	2.49

39	364	9.70


P-values for small group

Genes in small group	Known genes	Known genes in data set	Genes in data set	P-value

6	2	7	129	0.0342

50	6	7	129	0.0136

P-values for small group

Genes in small group	Known genes	Known genes in data set	Genes in data set

6	2	7	129

50	6	7	129

P-values for small group

P-value

0.0342

0.0136


Region	PS-DHA	Placebo	p Value

Thalamus	47.24 ± 0.58	36.25 ± 0.07	0.004

Corpus Callosum	49.34 ± 0.79	31.23 ± 0.27	0.059

Left Internal Capsule	43.77 ± 0.64	30.60 ± 0.38	0.052

Right Internal Capsule	42.70 ± 0.34	30.46 ± 0.29	0.032


 	B	SE B	OR	[95% CI]	p-value

Child’s BMI, kg/ m2	.63	.06	1.88	[1.66, 2.13]	.000

Migration background(child), yes	.47	.20	1.60	[1.07, 2.37]	.020

Self-efficacy to influencechild’s physical activity,high	-.54	.19	0.58	[0.40, 0.85]	.005

	B	SE B	OR	[95% CI]	p-value

Migration background(child), yes	.47	.20	1.60	[1.07, 2.37]	.020

Self-efficacy to influencechild’s physical activity,high	-.54	.19	0.58	[0.40, 0.85]	.005


	Univariate analysis

	Gametocytes	No gametocytes	OR	95% CI	P value

Placental malaria (haemozoin or qPCR)	14/15 (93.3%)	89/295 (30.2%)	32.4	4.2 - 250.2	<0.01

Haemozoin	12/15 (80.0%)	58/295 (19.7%)	16.3	4.5-59.8	<0.01

qPCR	9/15 (60.0%)	62/304 (20.4%)	5.9	2.0-17.1	<0.01

Mean maternal haemoglobin (g/dL) at enrolment (standard deviation)	10.9 (1.5)	11.8 (1.6)	0.7	0.6 – 1.0	0.02

Asexual stage parasitaemia at enrolment	12/22 (54.5%)	48/424 (11.3%)	9.4	3.9 – 22.9	<0.01

Malaria treatment prior to enrolment	6/22 (27.3%)	56/422 (13.2%)	2.5	0.9 – 6.5	0.09

Mean maternal age in years (standard deviation)	20.3 (3.1)	20.1 (3.2)	1.0	0.9 – 1.2	0.77

Primigravid	13/22 (59.1%)	268/424 (63.2%)	1.2	0.5 – 2.8	0.70

Mean gestational age in weeks at the time of enrolment (standard deviation)	20.1 (4.0)	20.1 (4.4)	1.0	0.9 – 1.1	0.97

Mother slept under a bed net the previous night	9/22 (40.9%)	211/422 (50.0%)	1.4	0.6 – 3.5	0.40

Maternal axillary temperature (°C) at enrolment (standard deviation)	36.5 (0.4)	36.6 (0.4)	0.8	0.3 – 2.2	0.72


Comparison and protein	Entrez gene name	P value	Fold change

LMP1 vs pBabe: no inhibitors (P = 1.92E−05)

DNAJC7	DnaJ (Hsp40) homologue, subfamily C, member 7	3.90E−02	−1.852

HSPA14	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 14	1.98E−02	−1.667

HSPB1	Heat shock 27-kDa protein 1	1.20E−02	3.427

PSMD2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 2	5.38E−03	1.171

PSMD8	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 8	1.92E−02	−1.728

THOP1	Thimet oligopeptidase 1	3.73E−02	−1.982

UBE2V1	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 variant 1	1.10E−03	1.739

USP5	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 5	2.61E−02	−1.490

USP14	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 14	2.57E−02	−2.353

LMP2 vs pBabe: no inhibitors (P = 1)

None

LMP1 vs pBabe: with inhibitors (P = 2.35E−06)

BAG1	BCL2-associated athanogene	2.96E−03	2.613

BIRC3	Baculoviral IAP repeat-containing 3	1.58E−02	−1.760

CUL1	Cullin-1	3.57E−03	−1.414

DNAJC5	DnaJ (Hsp40) homologue, subfamily C, member 5	2.41E−02	−2.692

HLA-B	Major histocompatibility complex, class I, B	2.06E−02	4.993

HSP90AA1	Heat shock protein 90-kDa alpha (cytosolic), class A member 1	3.43E−02	−1.335

HSPA6	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 6 (HSP70B′)	5.54E−03	−1.492

HSPA8	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 8	4.62E−02	−2.934

HSPA1A	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 1A	2.34E−03	−1.242

PSMB1	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 1	1.08E−03	2.223

PSMB8	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 8	9.89E−03	2.207

PSMB10	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 10	1.03E−02	2.319

PSMC2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, ATPase, 2	1.89E−02	1.127

PSMD14	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 14	4.95E−02	−1.390

RBX1	Ring box 1, E3 ubiquitin protein ligase	2.30E−02	−1.494

TCEB1	Transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1	4.49E−02	−1.414

TCEB2	Transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 2	1.33E−03	−1.690

UBE2I	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2I	1.19E−02	−1.485

UBE2L3	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2L 3	1.42E−02	4.031

UBE3B	Ubiquitin protein ligase E3B	6.61E−03	1.659

UBE4A	Ubiquitination factor E4A	1.94E−02	−2.941

USP38	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 38	3.60E−02	−3.717

LMP2 vs pBabe: with inhibitors (P = 4.26E−05)

CDC34	Cell division cycle 34	3.99E−02	−2.274

DNAJA1	DnaJ (Hsp40) homologue, subfamily A, member 1	5.00E−02	−1.763

HSCB	HscB mitochondrial iron-sulfur cluster cochaperone	4.67E−02	−2.333

PSMB1	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 1	1.73E−02	1.456

PSMC2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, ATPase, 2	2.62E−03	1.287

PSMD2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 2	2.70E−02	−1.227

TAP2	Transporter 2, ATP-binding cassette, subfamily B	3.16E−02	−2.098

TCEB2	Transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 2	1.27E−02	−1.275

TRAF6	TNF receptor-associated factor 6, E3 ubiquitin protein ligase	5.71E−03	−1.943

UBA1	Ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1	2.85E−03	−1.117

UBE2C	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C	1.21E−02	−5.242

UBE2L6	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2L 6	2.87E−02	−2.430

UBE3B	Ubiquitin protein ligase E3B	4.58E−02	1.134

UBE4A	Ubiquitination factor E4A	9.86E−03	−7.551

USP38	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 38	2.81E−02	−5.336

USP48	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 48	8.21E−03	−1.919


CRHR1 antagonist	Studies	Dosage	Outcome	Comments

Antalarmin	Rissman et al. (2012) [59], Dong et al. (2014) [43], Park et al. (2015) [44],	20 mg/kg	Rissman (2012) - Able to block acute stress induced tau phosphorylation but not that induced by chronic stress [59]. Dong (2014) - Able to decrease Aβ levels and plaque load in a chronic stress paradigm [43]. Park (2015) - Unable to block rises in Aβ in response to acute stress [44].	Dong (2014) measured PBS soluble Aβ, which represents roughly 5% of total Aβ.

A-helical CRH	Park et al. (2015) [44]	5 & 10 μM	Unable to block CRH induced Aβ increases in vitro.

Astressin	Park et al. (2015) [44]	5 & 10 μM	Unable to block CRH induced Aβ increases in vitro.

NBI 30775/R121919	Rissman et al. (2012) [59], Campbell et al. (2015) [51], Dong et al. (2014) [43], Zhang et al. (2016) [64]	20 mg/kg. Zhang (2016) utilized osmotic mini pump	Campbell (2015) [51] – able to decrease AT8 and PHF-1 phosphorylation in CRH overexpressing mice but not at S262 and S422. Rissman (2012) [59] – Able to decrease stress induced AT8 and PHF-1 increases in phosphorylation

NBI27914	Park et al. (2015) [44], Lee et al. (2009) [83], Carroll et al. (2011) [54]	10 mg/kg	Carroll (2011) [54] - NBI27914 rescued freezing and decreased AT8 phosphorylation and decreased neurodegeneration in PS1 tau transgenic mice.Lee (2009) [83] – NBI27914 reduced stress induced increases in Aβ levels and plaque load.Park (2015) [44] – NBI27914 increased secreted Aβ42/ Aβ40 ratio in vitro

CRHR1 antagonist	Studies	Dosage	Outcome	Comments

NBI27914	Park et al. (2015) [44], Lee et al. (2009) [83], Carroll et al. (2011) [54]	10 mg/kg	Carroll (2011) [54] - NBI27914 rescued freezing and decreased AT8 phosphorylation and decreased neurodegeneration in PS1 tau transgenic mice.Lee (2009) [83] – NBI27914 reduced stress induced increases in Aβ levels and plaque load.Park (2015) [44] – NBI27914 increased secreted Aβ42/ Aβ40 ratio in vitro


d— difference between G values	Selection rate2.5 %	5.0 %	10.0 %	Effect of divergent selection (χ2 test)

3 %	1.8-2.0	1.6-1.9	1.6-2.0	Not significant at any of the tested selection rates

5 %	2.7-4.2*	2.1-3.2	1.9-2.2	Significant at 2.5 % selection rate

7.5 %	3.5-5.5*	2.5-3.1	2.3-2.5	Significant at 2.5 % selection rate

10 %	7.6-10.5*	4.7-5.7*	3.5-4.0*	Significant at each assessed selection rate

Population size	1200	600	300	30 extreme RILs from each tail


Variable	Descriptive statistic

Age	27.1 ± 5.8 years

Age group

15–24	37.8%

25–34	48.3%

35–44	13.5%

< 15 and > 44	0.4%

Marital status

Married	86.9%

Single	12.0%

Widow or separated or divorced	1.2%

Years of formal education	10.3 ± 3.3 years

None	0.4%

Primary (1–8)	35.9%

Secondary (9–12)	42.9%

Tertiary (> 12)	20.8%

Total number of pregnancies	2.6 ± 1.7 pregnancies

1–4	86.1%

> 4	13.9%

Living children	2.5 ± 1.6 children

Male	1.2 ± 1.1

Female	1.3 ± 1.2


Gene Name	Primer Sequence	Length of Product (bp)

Reverse Transcription Quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)

CmCHS1	F: CTGGAACAGCAACGGAAACT	190

R: TCCGTTGTTGATGAGCCAGA

CmCHT1	F: TGCTGGCAACAACAACTACAATC	231

R: ATCTCCACGCTCTTAGGGTCTT

CmCDA1	F: AAGAAATGGCGGGTATGAGGGTG	142

R: AGTGGTGGATTAGACAAAGGTGCG

CmActin	F: GAGCGTGGTTACTCATTCA	283

R: TGTCAACATCGCACTTCA

CmCYPA792	F: TTGATGCGGATGTTGACG	164

R: ATGCCCTTTGGAGTTGGA

CmGST	F: AACTGTATTCGGCTTTATCC	234

R: ACACACTTGCTGCCTTTTCC

PCR for cDNA Sequencing

CmCDA1	F1: GTCTACGGTTGCGTTGCTCC	911

R1: GAGCAACGCAACCGTAGACGACTGG

F2: CATCATCGTTGTGCGTGACAGAGTG	970

R2: ACGACAGCACAATCACCGCACCTT

F3: GCCGTCCTCGGAGCAGAAACAGTCA	830

R3: CCAACAACGA CGAATATCTTCCAGG

CmCHT1	F1: TGTCCTCGATGCCGTACCTGCCCAC	1300

R1: AAGGGGTGCTGACCGCTGCTGTGCCGCT

F2: CACGCCGGGGCGGTACACCGCC	300

R2: TGGGAAGACAAGGGCTGTCCAACCAACA

CmCHSA	F1: ACTATGTGGCACGAAACGAA	354

R1: TAGTACATGTACAT

F2: CATTTGAAAGATAAGGC	580

R2: ACCAACATRAGRAADAT

F3: CGCCTTACATCGCTTACC	1258

R3: ACBARACCRATNGGYTCC


Oligonucleotide designation	Oligonucleotide (5′→3′)	Genome position

p1167	ACCCTACTGACTGACGAACAGATTGCTTC	6816−6847

p1168	TGTTGTTGAGCGTAATGAGTCCGTCCT	6230–6256

p1303	GTCTTGTCAAACGTTTATAATCTATGGCAAATACGTGA	6549–6586

p1305	TCAGCTCCACAAACATGTCATGAAAATTCGCATAGG	6503–6538

p1321	GTTATAAACAGTTTCCATGGTGCATCACACTTATC	3466–3500

p1322	ACGGGACTTGACAAATATTCCATAATTAACTGCCT	4502–4536

p1338	ATTGCTCACCCTTGTTGGGAACGTTACCCTT	1303–1333

p1343	AACTTAAACCTTTCGACACTTGGGAAGAAGTA	7001–7032

p1362	AACGGCACAATAGTCATCGTCCCG	6469–6492

p1363T	TGGCCGTCATGGTGGCGAATAATGTCAACCTAATCT-ACGGTAAGATGAGTCT	6051–6080

p1438	AGATGCAAAGGAACTGACAATGACGAACTT	1011–1040

p1439	TTCATTTGAGCAAGATATAATGAGCGTCTATAGTGGGT	1150–1187


Condition	Brain region	MNI coordinate	BA	T-value

		x	y	z

Resting-state	PCC	−6	−60	28	31	18.17

	Left IPC (lIPC)	−42	−66	44	40	15.45

	MPFC	1	50	24	9, 10	10.97

	Right IPC (rIPC)	48	−57	36	39, 40	9.25

	Right ITC (rITC)	63	−27	−20	20	7.43

	Left ITC (lITC)	−59	−21	−20	20, 21	6.43

	Left HC (lHC)	−24	−12	−28	35	5.82

	Right HC (rHC)	24	−30	−16	36	6.77

Task-state	PCC	−1	−63	24	7, 31	15.81

	Left IPC (lIPC)	−45	−69	39	39, 40	9.38

	MPFC	−6	54	28	9	15.18

	Right IPC (rIPC)	52	−66	28	39	5.12

	Right ITC (rITC)	54	6	−36	21	9.43

	Left ITC (lITC)	−51	−9	−28	20, 21	10.39

	Left HC (lHC)*	−24	−12	−28	35	5.82

	Right HC (rHC)*	24	−30	−16	36	6.77

Condition	Brain region	MNI coordinate	BA

		x	y	z

Resting-state	PCC	−6	−60	28	31

	Left IPC (lIPC)	−42	−66	44	40

	MPFC	1	50	24	9, 10

	Right IPC (rIPC)	48	−57	36	39, 40

	Right ITC (rITC)	63	−27	−20	20

	Left ITC (lITC)	−59	−21	−20	20, 21

	Left HC (lHC)	−24	−12	−28	35

	Right HC (rHC)	24	−30	−16	36

Task-state	PCC	−1	−63	24	7, 31

	Left IPC (lIPC)	−45	−69	39	39, 40

	MPFC	−6	54	28	9

	Right IPC (rIPC)	52	−66	28	39

	Right ITC (rITC)	54	6	−36	21

	Left ITC (lITC)	−51	−9	−28	20, 21

	Left HC (lHC)*	−24	−12	−28	35

	Right HC (rHC)*	24	−30	−16	36


SSR Pattern	SSR Numbers in Non-redundant White Clover ESTs	Frequency (%)	Designed EST-SSR Primers

Mismatch 0	Mismatch 1	Mismatch 2	Total

TAG	8	.63		0	0	0

AATT	8	0.63	3	2	17	22

ATAC	5	0.39	0	0	0	0

AACC	4	0.32	0	0	0	0

AAAC	4	0.32	0	9	34	43

AACT	3	0.24	0	0	0	0

Other tetra-nucleotide repeats	32	2.53	4	8	35	47

Total	1266	100	241	456	1276	1973


	Informant	Area of expertise	Recruitment	Interview setting	Informant characteristics

STEP 1 EXPERTS (N = 4) (key informant interviews)	Professor Peter Krustrup (PK)	Extensive knowledge and experience in human physiology and soccer research	Personal contact at a meeting	The informant’s office	Professor of Team Sport and Health; main research areas include muscle physiology, prevention and treatment of lifestyle diseases through physical activity, and training and testing in elite sport.

Professor Klaus Brasso (KB)	Extensive experience with clinical research and medical treatment of prostate cancer patients	Personal email	Meeting room, Department of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet	Professor, senior consultant/resident, M.D., Ph.D.; previously involved in research on the efficacy of recreational soccer in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy and a member of the FCPC Steering Committee

Dr. Svend Aage Madsen (SM)	Extensive knowledge and clinical experience in male psychology and gender-sensitive health promotion	Personal email	Telephone interview	Licensed specialist in psychotherapy, Ph.D.; co-founder and board member of the Danish Network on Research in Men and Masculinities and co-founder and president of the Danish Men’s Health Society

Professor Michael Borre (MB)	Extensive experience with clinical research and medical treatment of prostate cancer patients	Personal email	Office, Health Research Department, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet	Professor, senior consultant/resident, D.M.Sc., M.D., Ph.D.; chair of the executive board of the Danish Multidisciplinary Cancer Group (DMCG) and the Danish Prostate Cancer Group (DaProCa)

	Informant

STEP 1 EXPERTS (N = 4) (key informant interviews)	Professor Peter Krustrup (PK)

Professor Klaus Brasso (KB)

Dr. Svend Aage Madsen (SM)

Professor Michael Borre (MB)

Area of expertise	Recruitment	Interview setting	Informant characteristics

Extensive knowledge and experience in human physiology and soccer research	Personal contact at a meeting	The informant’s office	Professor of Team Sport and Health; main research areas include muscle physiology, prevention and treatment of lifestyle diseases through physical activity, and training and testing in elite sport.

Extensive experience with clinical research and medical treatment of prostate cancer patients	Personal email	Meeting room, Department of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet	Professor, senior consultant/resident, M.D., Ph.D.; previously involved in research on the efficacy of recreational soccer in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy and a member of the FCPC Steering Committee

Extensive knowledge and clinical experience in male psychology and gender-sensitive health promotion	Personal email	Telephone interview	Licensed specialist in psychotherapy, Ph.D.; co-founder and board member of the Danish Network on Research in Men and Masculinities and co-founder and president of the Danish Men’s Health Society

Extensive experience with clinical research and medical treatment of prostate cancer patients	Personal email	Office, Health Research Department, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet	Professor, senior consultant/resident, D.M.Sc., M.D., Ph.D.; chair of the executive board of the Danish Multidisciplinary Cancer Group (DMCG) and the Danish Prostate Cancer Group (DaProCa)


2008 Criteria for PMF	2016 Criteria for pre-PMF	2016 Criteria for overt PMF

Major criteria

 MK proliferiferation and atypia with fibrosis (reticulin and/or collagen) or increased marrow cellularity, granulocytic proliferation and decreased erythropoesis in the absence of fibrosis	MK proliferation and atypia without reticulin fibrosis with increased marrow cellularity, granulocytic proliferation and often decreased erythropoesis	MK proliferiferation and atypia with fibrosis (reticulin and/or collagen)

 Does not meet WHO criteria for other myeloid neoplasms	Does not meet WHO criteria for other myeloid neoplasms	Does not meet WHO criteria for other myeloid neoplasms

 Presence of JAK2V617F or other clonal marker or no evidence of reactive fibrosis.	Presence of JAK2, CALR or MPL mutation or other clonal marker with no evidence of reactive fibrosis	Presence of JAK2, CALR or MPL mutation or other clonal marker with no evidence of reactive fibrosis

Minor criteria

 Leukoerythroblastosis	Leukocytosis (⩾11 × 109/L)	Leukoerythroblastosis

 Increased serum lactate dehydrogenase	Increased serum lactate dehydrogenase	Increased serum lactate dehydrogenase

 Anemia	Anemia (not due to comorbidities)	Anemia (not due to comorbidities)

 Palpable splenomegaly	Palpable splenomegaly	Palpable splenomegaly

 	 	Leukocytosis (⩾11 × 109/L)


Test Method

90°/0° tensile

±45° tensile

±45°/90°/0° compression

DCB

3ENF

Mode III


Question	Responses	Frequency	%	Total/350	Recoding/Routing

A1. In which of the following is the property situated?	Centre of a large city	0	0.0	336

Suburbs/Outskirts of a large city	257	73.4

Large town or small city	76	21.7

Small town	3	0.9

Village	0	0.0

Countryside	0	0.0

Other	0	0.0

Missing	14	4.0

B4. Looking at this card [show card 1], overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you personally with living in this neighbourhood? Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?	Very satisfied	112	32.0	350

Satisfied	160	45.7

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	25	7.1

Dissatisfied	27	7.7

Very dissatisfied	26	7.4

Missing	0	0.0

C2. Looking at this card [show card 1], overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you personally with living in this home? Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?	Very satisfied	138	39.4	350

Satisfied	163	46.6

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	21	6.0

Dissatisfied	16	4.6

Very dissatisfied	12	3.4

Missing	0	0.0

C9. Looking at this list [show card 3], which best describes your current situation with this home? Do you or your family:	Own outright or with a mortgage	228	65.1	348	Responses to this questions were recoded as to whether they had some stake in the property or not, i.e., A: (Own/Mortgage/Part mortgage), B: (Private Rent/Association Rent).

Part-rent and part-own with a mortgage	9	2.6

Rent from a private landlord/letting agency	53	15.1

Rent from a Housing Association or Council	53	15.1

Other	5	1.4

Missing	2	0.6

C12. From any room in this home, can you see:Construction Activity	No	202	57.7	345

Yes	143	40.9

Missing	5	1.4

Question	Responses	Frequency	%	Total/350	Recoding/Routing

A1. In which of the following is the property situated?	Large town or small city	76	21.7	336

Small town	3	0.9

Village	0	0.0

Countryside	0	0.0

Other	0	0.0

Missing	14	4.0

B4. Looking at this card [show card 1], overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you personally with living in this neighbourhood? Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?	Very satisfied	112	32.0	350

Satisfied	160	45.7

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	25	7.1

Dissatisfied	27	7.7

Very dissatisfied	26	7.4

Missing	0	0.0

C2. Looking at this card [show card 1], overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you personally with living in this home? Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?	Very satisfied	138	39.4	350

Satisfied	163	46.6

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	21	6.0

Dissatisfied	16	4.6

Very dissatisfied	12	3.4

Missing	0	0.0

C9. Looking at this list [show card 3], which best describes your current situation with this home? Do you or your family:	Own outright or with a mortgage	228	65.1	348	Responses to this questions were recoded as to whether they had some stake in the property or not, i.e., A: (Own/Mortgage/Part mortgage), B: (Private Rent/Association Rent).

Part-rent and part-own with a mortgage	9	2.6

Rent from a private landlord/letting agency	53	15.1

Rent from a Housing Association or Council	53	15.1

Other	5	1.4

Missing	2	0.6

C12. From any room in this home, can you see:Construction Activity	No	202	57.7	345

Yes	143	40.9

Missing	5	1.4


Variables	Total	Progastrin staining in HP epithelial cells

	N = 48	No/Low expression	Moderate expression	High expression	p-value

		N = 21	N = 12	N = 15

Percentage of p-ERK1/2 stained cells, N mean (SD)	N = 43 33% (30)	N = 18 27% (29)	N = 12 23% (22)	N = 13 53% (29)	0.015a

Expression of p-ERK1/2					0.008b

No/low expression	35% [21%-51%]	50% [26%-74%]	42% [15%-72%]	8% [0%-36%]

Moderate expression	37% [23%-53%]	33% [13%-59%]	42% [15%-72%]	38% [14%-68%]

High expressi	28% [15%	17% [4%-41%	16% [2%-48	54% [25%

Variables	Total	Progastrin staining in HP epithelial cells

	N = 48	No/Low expression	Moderate expression	High expression	p-value

		N = 21	N = 12	N = 15

on	-44%]	]	%]	-81%]

Percentage of pY-STAT3 stained cells, N mean (SD)	N = 35 10% (23)	N = 15 11% (29)	N = 7 3% (7)	N = 13 12% (23)	0.297

Expression of pY-STAT3					0.3116

No/low expression	77% [60%-90%]	80% [52%-96%]	86% [42%-100%]	69% [39%-91%]

Moderate expression	14% [5%-30%]	7% [0%-32%]	14% [0%-58%]	23% [5%-54%]

High expression	9% [2%-23%]	13% [2%-40%]	0% [0%-41%]	8% [0%-36%]


Adverse event	Estimated incidence

a) death	20%*

b) necrotising enterocolitis or focal intestinal perforation diagnosed on clinical grounds, or at surgery	15%*

c) intracranial abnormality (parenchymal haemorrhage or focal white matter damage) on cranial ultrasound	15%*

d) requirement for supplementary oxygen 28 days after birth	55%*

e) patent ductus arteriosus requiring medical or surgical management	25%*

f) retinal surgery for retinopathy of prematurity	5%*

g) sustained tachycardia (greater than 220 beats per minute for more than 30 minutes in a 60 minute period)	20%**

h) pulmonary haemorrhage	5%**

i) persistent weight loss after 14 days after birth in the absence of infection.	10%**

Adverse event	Estimated incidence

g) sustained tachycardia (greater than 220 beats per minute for more than 30 minutes in a 60 minute period)	20%**

h) pulmonary haemorrhage	5%**

i) persistent weight loss after 14 days after birth in the absence of infection.	10%**


Subject

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mean


Strain	Growth rate	masses	terminal phenotype

w1118	+++	-	viable

da-Gal4	+++	-	viable

tub-Gal4	+++	-	homozygous lethal

act5c-Gal4	+++	-	homozygous lethal

UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+++	-	viable

UAS-Dis3 (35091)	+++	-	homozygous lethal

da-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

da-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35091)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

tub-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

act5c-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

masses	terminal phenotype

-	viable

-	viable

-	homozygous lethal

-	homozygous lethal

-	viable

-	homozygous lethal

+	2nd instar larva lethal

+	2nd instar larva lethal

+	2nd instar larva lethal

+	2nd instar larva lethal


Number	Mixtures Composition (wt %)

Stellite 6	WS2	NbC

Coating 1	100	-	-

Coating 2	85	15	-

Coating 3	70	-	30

Coating 4	60	10	30

Coating 5	55	15	30

Coating 6	50	20	30

Number	Mixtures Composition (wt %)

Stellite 6	WS2	NbC

Coating 5	55	15	30

Coating 6	50	20	30


Region	R/L/M	BA	MNI coordinate	Stats

x	y	z	T	Sizea

Group difference

IGO < Control

 rACC/vmPFC	L	32	−6	50	12	18.8	29

IGO > Control

 NS

Group × reward-type interaction

IP region	L	39	−46	−56	20	20.5	26

mOFC/vmPFC	M	11	−2	44	−10	19.8	24

Region	R/L/M	BA	MNI coordinate	Stats

x	y	z	T	Sizea

mOFC/vmPFC	M	11	−2	44	−10	19.8	24


Characteristics	Group-1 (n = 53) No SG	Group-2 (n = 27) Mild SG	Group-3 (n = 65) Severe SG	p-value

t C/S	38.42±1.08	.88	±0.67

Birth weight of second baby (gram)	3315±297	3270±458	3351±381	0.658


Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes	Cobalt (μg/L)

High (n = 9)	Not High (n = 236)

Gestational diabetes, n (%)	0 (0)	18 (7.6)

Preeclampsia, n (%)	0 (0)	5 (2.1)

Gestational age at delivery, weeks, median	39.6	39.5

Baby weight, g, median	3540	3180

Preterm, n (%)	0 (0)	11 (4.7)

Low birth weight, n (%)	0 (0)	9 (3.8)

Small for gestational age, n (%)	1 (11.1)	35 (14.8)

Congenital abnormality, n (%)	0 (0)	14 (5.9)


	All synolog pairs	≥90% protein sequence identity between synolog pairs

	Median ± MAD	Min	Max	Median ± MAD	Min	Max

Number of carbohydrate metabolism synologs	49.0 ± 35.0	0	394	0.0 ± 0.0	0	47

Number of carbohydrate metabolism synolog groups	20.0 ± 13.0	0	128	0.0 ± 0.0	0	16

Average protein sequence identity between synolog pairs2 [%]	36.8 ± 4.2	13.4	100.0	97.3 ± 1.8	90.0	100.0

Synolog fraction of carbohydrate metabolism genes [%]	30.0 ± 9.7	0.0	85.7	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0	34.6

	All synolog pairs	≥90% protein sequence identity between synolog pairs

	Median ± MAD	Min	Max	Median ± MAD

Number of carbohydrate metabolism synologs	49.0 ± 35.0	0	394	0.0 ± 0.0

Number of carbohydrate metabolism synolog groups	20.0 ± 13.0	0	128	0.0 ± 0.0

Average protein sequence identity between synolog pairs2 [%]	36.8 ± 4.2	13.4	100.0	97.3 ± 1.8

Synolog fraction of carbohydrate metabolism genes [%]	30.0 ± 9.7	0.0	85.7	0.0 ± 0.0

≥90% protein sequence identity between synolog pairs

Min	Max

0	47

0	16

90.0	100.0

0.0	34.6


Source	Variable	# Items	Response options	Cronbach’s α	Pearson’s r	Potential Range	Actual Range	Mean (SD)

	Social Support for Healthy Eating

Child	Family Food Culture	4	0 (Never or almost never) to 2 (almost always or always)	.64	NA	0–8	0–8	5.36 (1.80)

Parent	Instrumental support for healthy eating	7	0 (No) to 1 (Yes)	.76	NA	0–7	0–7	4.38 (2.04)

Parent	Home availability and accessibility of FV	6	0 (Never) to 3 (All of the time)	.72	NA	0–18	1–18	10.75 (3.57)

Parent	Home availability of SSB	1	0 (Never) to 3 (All of the time)	NA	NA	0–3	0–3	1.59 (.87)

Parent	Emotional support for healthy eating	6	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.71	NA	0–24	0–24	17.66 (3.82)

Parent	Rules for healthy eating	3	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.77	NA	0–12	0–12	8.96 (2.46)

Parent	Modeling vegetable intake	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	3.48 (.84)

Parent	Modeling SSB	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	2.79 (1.18)

	Social Support for Physical Activity

Parent	Instrumental support for PA	2	0 (Never) to 7 (7 days)	NA	.46	0–14	0–14	3.96 (3.38)

Parent	Emotional support for PA	4	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.74	NA	0–16	0–16	12.73 (2.52)

Parent	Modeling PA	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	3.55 (.82)

Source	Variable	# Items	Response options	Cronbach’s α	Pearson’s r	Potential Range	Actual Range	Mean (SD)

	cial Support for Physical Activity

Parent	Instrumental support for PA	2	0 (Never) to 7 (7 days)	NA	.46	0–14	0–14	3.96 (3.38)

Parent	Emotional support for PA	4	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.74	NA	0–16	0–16	12.73 (2.52)

Parent	Modeling PA	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	3.55 (.82)


FACTOR1

GO ID	GO Term	Size	Count	Pvalue

GO.0007051	spindle organization	6	2	8.20E-03

GO.0050931	pigment cell differentiation	7	2	0.011

GO.0000279	M phase of meiotic cell cycle	79	6	0.012

GO.0000079	regulation of cyclin dependent protein kinase activity	9	2	0.019

GO.0016570	histone modification	13	2	0.038

GO.0015698	inorganic anion transport	53	4	0.039

GO.0007156	homophilic cell adhesion	32	3	0.041

Kegg ID	Kegg pathway	Size	Count	Pvalue

map05216	Thyroid cancer	11	2	0.020

map05130	Pathogenic Escherichia coli infection	12	2	0.024

map04520	Adherens junction	31	3	0.024

FACTOR2

GO ID	GO Term	Size	Count	Pvalue

GO.0006195	purine nucleotide catabolic process	5	3	2.23E-05

GO.0030168	platelet activation	7	3	7.65E-05

GO.0007051	spindle organization	6	2	2.55E-03

GO.0007596	blood coagulation	24	3	3.76E-03

GO.0030336	negative regulation of cell migration	12	2	0.011

GO.0032879	regulation of localization	103	5	0.012

GO.0001775	cell activation	74	4	0.016

GO.0001890	placenta development	18	2	0.023

GO.0017038	protein import	49	3	0.027

GO.0006403	RNA localization	22	2	0.034

GO.0006816	calcium ion transport	56	3	0.038

Kegg ID	Kegg pathway	Size	Count	Pvalue

map00230	Purine metabolism	64	4	0.013

FACTOR1

GO.0016570	histone modification	13	2	0.038

GO.0015698	inorganic anion transport	53	4	0.039

GO.0007156	homophilic cell adhesion	32	3	0.041

Kegg ID	Kegg pathway	Size	Count	Pvalue

map05216	Thyroid cancer	11	2	0.020

map05130	Pathogenic Escherichia coli infection	12	2	0.024

map04520	Adherens junction	31	3	0.024

FACTOR2

GO ID	GO Term	Size	Count	Pvalue

GO.0006195	purine nucleotide catabolic process	5	3	2.23E-05

GO.0030168	platelet activation	7	3	7.65E-05

GO.0007051	spindle organization	6	2	2.55E-03

GO.0007596	blood coagulation	24	3	3.76E-03

GO.0030336	negative regulation of cell migration	12	2	0.011

GO.0032879	regulation of localization	103	5	0.012

GO.0001775	cell activation	74	4	0.016

GO.0001890	placenta development	18	2	0.023

GO.0017038	protein import	49	3	0.027

GO.0006403	RNA localization	22	2	0.034

GO.0006816	calcium ion transport	56	3	0.038

Kegg ID	Kegg pathway	Size	Count	Pvalue

map00230	Purine metabolism	64	4	0.013


Complication	Incidence [25]	Cost for treatment

Re-operation (any reason) (including infection)	0.30% (3 out of 1,000)	- CPT 29871 (surgical, for infection, lavage and drainage); $521.91

- APC 0041(knee arthroscopy/drainage); $2,111.62

Venous thromboembolism (VTE)	0.19% (1.9 out of 1,000)	Costs over a 12 month timeframe for treating VTE; $14,865

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)	0.12% (1.2 out of 1,000)	Costs over a 12 month timeframe for treating DVT [43]; $14,865

Pulmonary embolism (PE)	0.08% (0.8 out of 1,000)	Costs over a 12 month timeframe for treating PE [43]; $22,900


Location	PT-INR tests	Range stated	Cause stated

PHCC Östergötland	499	480	495

PHCC Eksjö	65	65	65

PHCC total (men/women)	564 (289/275)	545 (282/263)	560 (289/271)

ACC Östergötland	470	470	464

ACC Eksjö	58	58	58

ACC Värnamo	399	399	393

ACC Total (men/women)	927 (540/387)	927 (540/387)	915 (531/384)


Parameters	Cases ± SD	Controls ± SD	p value

Total SOD Activity (U/ml)	285.44 ± 114.36	319.79 ± 126.12	0.144

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on Metformin onlya	274.81 ± 122.73	-	a*b*c =0.771

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on Metformin and other drugsb	281.75 ± 111.91	-	Post hoc:

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on other drugs aside Metforminc	307.98 ± 133.40		a*b =0.824 ;

a*c =0.499;

b*c =0.5265

Parameters	Cases ± SD	Controls ± SD

Total SOD Activity (U/ml)	285.44 ± 114.36	319.79 ± 126.12

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on Metformin onlya	274.81 ± 122.73	-

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on Metformin and other drugsb	281.75 ± 111.91	-

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on other drugs aside Metforminc	307.98 ± 133.40


Group

Parameters

Normal Morphology

Abnormal Head

Abnormal Tail


	Derivation set (N = 38)	P-value (Wilcoxon)

	No response (N = 21)	Response (N = 16)

miR375

Mean ± STD	5.2 ± 2.2	7.1 ± 1.8	0.01

Median (min–max)	5.8 (−0.5–7.9)	7.3 (4.2–9.8)

miR149

Mean ± STD	7.2 ± 1.4	4.8 ± 1.8	<0.001

Median (min–max)	6.5 (5.0–9.5)	4.8 (1.8–7.8)

	Validation set (N = 22)	P-value (Wilcoxon)

	No response (N = 13)	Response (N = 9)

miR375

Mean ± STD	3.8 ± 1.7	2.3 ± 2.3	0.07

Median (min–max)	2.8 (2.0–6.6)	1.7 (−0.2–7.6)

miR149

Mean ± STD	5.4 ± 1.7	4.2 ± 1.2	0.11

Median (min–max)	5.3 (1.8–7.2)	4.3 (2.4–5.8)

	Derivation set (N = 38)	P-value (Wilcoxon)

	No response (N = 21)	Response (N = 16)

Median (min–max)	5.8 (−0.5–7.9)	7.3 (4.2–9.8)

miR149

Mean ± STD	7.2 ± 1.4	4.8 ± 1.8	<0.001

Median (min–max)	6.5 (5.0–9.5)	4.8 (1.8–7.8)

	Validation set (N = 22)	P-value (Wilcoxon)

	No response (N = 13)	Response (N = 9)

miR375

Mean ± STD	3.8 ± 1.7	2.3 ± 2.3	0.07

Median (min–max)	2.8 (2.0–6.6)	1.7 (−0.2–7.6)

miR149

Mean ± STD	5.4 ± 1.7	4.2 ± 1.2	0.11

Median (min–max)	5.3 (1.8–7.2)	4.3 (2.4–5.8)


Type of analysis	HR	SE	95% CI	P-value

VTE risk

Crude analysis	0.66	0.29	(0.28-1.54)	0.33

PS stratified analysis*	0.63	0.29	(0.25-1.57)	0.33

Hospital Mortality

Crude analysis	1.26	0.18	(0.95-1.68)	0.10

PS stratified analysis*	0.98	0.16	(0.72-1.36)	0.94

Type of analysis	HR	SE	95% CI	P-value

Hospital Mortality

Crude analysis	1.26	0.18	(0.95-1.68)	0.10

PS stratified analysis*	0.98	0.16	(0.72-1.36)	0.94


	Mating systems	Promiscuity

Humans included in the model

Relative brain size	F = 6.59	p = 0.002	p = 0.570

Relative testis size	F = 26.93	p<0.0001	p<0.0001

Sexual dimorphism	F = 3.83	p = 0.021	p = 0.721

Humans excluded from the model

Relative brain size	F = 3.93	p = 0.019	p = 0.341

Relative testis size	F = 26.52	p<0.0001	p<0.0001

Sexual dimorphism	F = 3.83	p = 0.023	p = 0.818


 	First-born children born in 2008	The 2008 birth cohort	The 2006 birth cohort*

 	Total n	%	Total n	%	Total n	%

MS score negative (=0)	617	91	1525	89**	955	85**

 F group (oral hygiene and fluoride)	242	91	686	87	419	83

 X group (diet and xylitol)	176	89	390	88	231	89

 Control group	199	92	449	93	305	86

 P	 	0.658	 	0.011	 	0.129


Type of drug related questions	Response N (%)

Never	Sometimes	Always


Primer	Sequence

miR-182	F: 5′-GGCAATGGTAGAACTCACACT-3′

R: 5′-AACATGTACAGTCCATGGATG-3′

HOXA9	F: 5′-TGCCCTCCAGCCGGCCTTAT-3′

R: 5′-CCGCTTTGTGCGGGGATGGT-3

Wnt	F: 5′-GCTAGCGAAAGTCATTGGC -3′

R: 5′-CATTGCATCGAAGTCGTG-3′

CTNNB1	F: 5′-ACAAACTGTTTTGAAAATCCA-3′

R: 5′-CGAGTCATTGCATACTGTCC-3′

WIF-1	F: 5′-CCGAAATGGAGGCTTTTGTA-3′

R: 5′-TGGTTGAGCAGTTTGCTTTG-3′

Survivin	F: 5′-CCGAGGGACTGTGTGGGGGTC-3′

R: 5′-CCAGGCACAGACCAAGGACGC-3′

CCND1	F: 5′-AATGGGCCTTAGAATGACTGC-3′

R: 5′-ATGCCAACACAGATGGCTTT-3′

C-myc	F: 5′-CTACCAGCAGCAGCAGCAGAGC-3′

R: 5′-CGTCCGGGTCGCACATGAA-3′

BIM	F: 5′-CGTAGCGCATGCGATA-3′

R: 5′-CATGCCGTATAAGCTAGTT-3′

Bax	F: 5′-GGCCCACCAGCTCTGAGCAGA-3′

R: 5′-GCCACGTGGGGGTCCCAAAGT-3′

Mcl-1	F: 5′-AGAAAGCTGCATCGAACCATTA-3′

R: 5′-GGAAGAACAACTCCACAAACCCATC-3′

Bcl-xl	F: 5′-TTGGACAATGGACTGGTTGA-3′

R: 5′-GTAGAGTGGATGGTCAGTG-3′

Snail	F: 5′-CTCCTCTACTTCAGCCTCTT-3′

R: 5′-CTTCATCAACGTCCTGTGGG-3′

GAPDH	F: 5′-CCACCCATGGCAAATTCCATGGCA-3′

R: 5′-TCTAGACGGCAGGTCAGGTCCAC-3′

U6	F: 5′-CTCGGCTTCGGCAGCACA-3′

R: 5′-AACGCTTCACGAATTTGCGT-3′

Primer

miR-182

HOXA9

Wnt

CTNNB1

WIF-1

Survivin

CCND1

C-myc

BIM

Bax

Mcl-1

Bcl-xl

Snail

GAPDH

U6

Sequence

F: 5′-GGCAATGGTAGAACTCACACT-3′

R: 5′-AACATGTACAGTCCATGGATG-3′

F: 5′-TGCCCTCCAGCCGGCCTTAT-3′

R: 5′-CCGCTTTGTGCGGGGATGGT-3

F: 5′-GCTAGCGAAAGTCATTGGC -3′

R: 5′-CATTGCATCGAAGTCGTG-3′

F: 5′-ACAAACTGTTTTGAAAATCCA-3′

R: 5′-CGAGTCATTGCATACTGTCC-3′

F: 5′-CCGAAATGGAGGCTTTTGTA-3′

R: 5′-TGGTTGAGCAGTTTGCTTTG-3′

F: 5′-CCGAGGGACTGTGTGGGGGTC-3′

R: 5′-CCAGGCACAGACCAAGGACGC-3′

F: 5′-AATGGGCCTTAGAATGACTGC-3′

R: 5′-ATGCCAACACAGATGGCTTT-3′

F: 5′-CTACCAGCAGCAGCAGCAGAGC-3′

R: 5′-CGTCCGGGTCGCACATGAA-3′

F: 5′-CGTAGCGCATGCGATA-3′

R: 5′-CATGCCGTATAAGCTAGTT-3′

F: 5′-GGCCCACCAGCTCTGAGCAGA-3′

R: 5′-GCCACGTGGGGGTCCCAAAGT-3′

F: 5′-AGAAAGCTGCATCGAACCATTA-3′

R: 5′-GGAAGAACAACTCCACAAACCCATC-3′

F: 5′-TTGGACAATGGACTGGTTGA-3′

R: 5′-GTAGAGTGGATGGTCAGTG-3′

F: 5′-CTCCTCTACTTCAGCCTCTT-3′

R: 5′-CTTCATCAACGTCCTGTGGG-3′

F: 5′-CCACCCATGGCAAATTCCATGGCA-3′

R: 5′-TCTAGACGGCAGGTCAGGTCCAC-3′

F: 5′-CTCGGCTTCGGCAGCACA-3′

R: 5′-AACGCTTCACGAATTTGCGT-3′