“
“We analyzed the polymorphisms TFAM HaeIII, TFAM MboI and FABP4 MspA1I in three Nellore lines selected for growth in order to evaluate how selection affects the frequencies of these polymorphisms and evaluate their association with growth and carcass traits in Zebu cattle. Birth, weaning and yearling weights,

rump height, longissimus muscle area, backfat thickness, and rump fat thickness were analyzed. The sample was constituted of animals from two lines selected for yearling weight (NeS and NeT), and a control line (NeC), established in 1980, at the Sao Paulo Instituto de Zootecnia. Two hundred and seventy-two heifers were genotyped for TFAM gene SNPs, and 325 heifers were genotyped for the FABP4 SNP. High frequencies were Compound C observed for the alleles A (TFAM

HaeIII), C (TFAM MboI) Selleckchem AZD5363 and C (FABP4 MspA1I). Significant differences in allele frequencies between NeS and NeT were observed for the TFAM HaeIII, and between the line NeT and lines NeC and NeS for the FABP4 MspA1I SNP. Five haplotypes were observed for the two polymorphisms in the TFAM gene, haplotype AACC being the most frequent. None of the markers evaluated separately or according to haplotype was significantly associated with the growth and carcass traits. The low frequencies of alleles that are associated with high marbling scores and thick subcutaneous fat in taurine breeds might explain the low means for these traits in Nellore cattle.”
“Background The PatientViewpoint website collects patient-reported outcomes and links them with the electronic health record to aid patient management. This pilot test evaluated PatientViewpoint’s use, usefulness, and acceptability to patients and clinicians. Methods This was a single-arm prospective study that enrolled breast and prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment and the clinicians who managed them. Patients completed patient-reported outcomes every 2weeks, and clinicians could access the results for patient

visits. Scores that were LDK378 nmr poor relative to norms or substantially worse than the previous assessment were highlighted. After three on-study visits, we assessed patient and clinician perspectives on PatientViewpoint using close-ended and open-ended questions. Results Eleven out of 12 eligible clinicians (92%) and 52/76 eligible patients (68%) enrolled. Patients completed a median of 71% of assigned questionnaires; clinicians reported using the information for 79% of patients, most commonly as a source of additional information (51%). At the median, score reports identified three potential issues, of which 1 was discussed during the visit. Patients reported the system was easy to use (92%), useful (70%), aided recall of symptoms/side effects (72%), helped them feel more in control of their care (60%), improved discussions with their provider (49%), and improved care quality (39%).