Relationship Among Key Neuroendocrine Hormones
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Relationship Among Key Neuroendocrine Hormones
Page 6 of 13Goracke‑Postle et al. BMC Neurol (2021) 21:384
BDNF, CNTF, FSH, GH, LH, PRL, and TSH; inflammatory cytokines/chemokines: IL-1α, IL-1ra, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p40, IL-12p70, TNFα, IFN-α2, IP-10, MCP-1, MIP1β, and RANTES; and neurotransmitters/ neuropeptides: Dynorphin A, neuropeptide Y, somatostatin, β endorphin, cortisol, neurotensin, orexin A, substance P, melatonin, oxytocin, melanocyte-stimulating hormone (α-MSH). Figure 1 illustrates the correlations among analytes (at p ≤ 0.001); a full list of analytes that demonstrated correlations (p ≤ 0.05) among the participants with CP is included in the Supplemental Information (Supplemental Table 1).
Considering this initial complete cohort, there were 35 analyte pairings with positive correlations as per our criteria from 21 distinct analytes (all p ≤ 0.001; Table 2). These 35 correlations represent combinations of endo- crine, inflammatory, and excitatory neuropeptides. The specific correlation pattern represents a novel approach to considering analytes that may shed light on the mech- anistic underpinnings of secondary processes that may be ongoing in CP and result in clinical signs and their manifestation.
To assess the potential of such protein signatures in CSF to distinguish differences relating to biological variables underlying various subpopulations of CP patients, we assessed analyte correlations between various sub- groups. This analysis provided novel information, with analyte signature correlations becoming apparent for specific subsets of participant groups. This report focuses on birth term as a defining characteristic; how- ever, the Supplemental Information provides full analy- ses of various subgroups based on additional clinical characteristics.
Gestational age subgroup analyses Term birth No significant correlations between analytes were detected at the pre-determined significance level (p ≤ 0.001) used to report the rest of the subgroup findings. There were, however, two correlations at p ≤ 0.05 specific to Term Birth participants (correlations which were not present for Preterm Birth or Extremely Preterm Birth participants) specifically between IL-1ra and orexin A and between orexin A and substance P (identical data for both correla- tions: Correlation (Corr) = 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = [0.89, 1]; Adjusted P (Adj P) = 0.041) (Fig. 2).
Preterm birth Preterm Birth status resulted in clusters of analytes that were highly correlated to one another (Fig. 3). There were 14 discrete correlations not found in the other ges- tational subgroup (bolded in Table 3); these correlations
represent unique correlations in this sample specific to individuals born preterm.
Extremely preterm birth Extremely Preterm Birth status also resulted in distinct analyte correlations different from both Term Birth and Preterm Birth participants (Fig. 4). There were 24 dis- crete analyte correlations unique in this sample of par- ticipants in the extremely preterm birth status (bold in Table 4).
Table 2 Significant Pearson’s correlations (p ≤ 0.001) between analyte pairs, representing 21 distinct analyte correlations (bold font)
Analyte 1 Analyte 2 Correlation 95% CI Adj. p
Dynorphin A AGRP 0.71 [0.34, 0.85] < .001 Dynorphin A ACTH 0.79 [0.60, 0.90] < .001 Dynorphin A IL-12p70 0.68 [0.41, 0.84] 0.001 Dynorphin A TNFα 0.80 [0.60, 0.90] < .001 Dynorphin A substance P 0.78 [0.57, 0.89] < .001 AGRP IL-6 0.73 [0.49, 0.87] < .001 AGRP IL-8 0.71 [0.46, 0.86] < .001 AGRP IL-10 0.91 [0.81, 0.96] < .001 AGRP IL-12p40 0.73 [0.50, 0.87] < .001 AGRP MIP-1β 0.94 [0.87, 0.97] < .001 AGRP TNFα 0.67 [0.40, 0.84] 0.001
FSH LH 0.89 [0.78, 0.95] < .001 TSH ACTH 0.69 [0.42, 0.84] 0.001 ACTH IL‑12p70 0.82 [0.65, 0.92] < .001
ACTH TNFα 0.92 [0.83, 0.96] < .001
ACTH β endorphin 0.67 [0.40, 0.83] 0.001 ACTH substance P 0.91 [0.81, 0.96] < .001
IFNα2 IL‑12p70 0.73 [0.49, 0.87] < .001 IL-1α IL‑12p40 0.78 [0.57, 0.89] < .001 IL‑1α IP-10 0.79 [0.60, 0.90] < .001 IL-1RA orexin A 0.75 [0.52, 0.88] < .001 IL‑6 IL‑10 0.87 [0.74, 0.94] < .001
IL‑6 IL‑12p40 0.68 [0.41, 0.84] 0.001
IL‑8 MIP‑1β 0.73 [0.49, 0.87] < .001
IL‑10 IL‑12p40 0.74 [0.51, 0.87] < .001
IL‑10 MIP‑1β 0.81 [0.63, 0.91] < .001
IL‑12p40 IP‑10 0.81 [0.63, 0.91] < .001
IL‑12p70 TNFα 0.91 [0.81, 0.96] < .001
IL‑12p70 substance P 0.82 [0.64, 0.91] < .001
TNFα substance P 0.93 [0.86, 0.97] < .001
β endorphin orexin A 0.81 [0.63, 0.91] < .001
β endorphin substance P 0.81 [0.62, 0.91] < .001
β endorphin αMSH 0.70 [0.44, 0.85] 0.001
orexin A substance P 0.70 [0.44, 0.85] 0.001
orexin A αMSH 0.79 [0.58, 0.90] < .001
Page 7 of 13Goracke‑Postle et al. BMC Neurol (2021) 21:384
Between subgroup analyses Differences in correlations between subgroups were also directly tested. As noted above, to be included in between-group analysis, each correlation first had to be statistically significant within the subgroups. Thirty- two pairs of correlations were statistically significant across all subgroups. Then the identified correlations were tested against one another to check whether they were significantly different by birth status. Based on this approach, there was a significant difference between the Preterm and Extremely Preterm Birth subgroups for the correlation between TNFα and substance P (Extremely Preterm r to z = 0.99, Preterm r to z = 0.82, Z Differ- ence = 1.49, p < 0.05).
Discussion There are many different ways that white matter and upper motor neurons can be damaged. It is gener- ally agreed that enough damage will interfere with and
ultimately impair motor control and increase risk for the clinical condition of CP (importantly there are, of course, other associated impairments including cognitive and sensory function). Of the many putative causal agents and pathways to CP, the role of neuroinflammation in perinatal brain damage has received considerable empiri- cal attention. There has also been considerable concep- tual emphasis challenging conventional wisdom about the nature of the threat in relation to inflammation and the developing brain with a distinct shift to a perspective that a core underlying feature may be less about static events (i.e., a one-time insult) and more about sustained states (i.e., an ongoing process). The significance of this shift is in widening the focus of inquiry to include tertiary mechanisms of brain damage, which, in turn, could shed new light on a very old problem – namely treating CP based on its underlying pathophysiology.
There is a working hypothesis that suggests that the relationship among key neuroendocrine hormones,
Fig. 2 Visual representation of the direction and strength of the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between all 33 analytes assayed within the Term Birth subgroup. Positive (blue), negative (red), strong (dark shading), and weak (light shading) correlations are depicted. *In instances where the same value was reported for each variable, no correlation was calculated
Page 8 of 13Goracke‑Postle et al. BMC Neurol (2021) 21:384
excitatory neuropeptides, and neuroinflammatory cytokines as markers may be a critical variable predict- ing outcome. The conceptual basis for this is the past two decades of work supporting the cross-talk among the endocrine, nociceptive, and immune systems. In healthy states there is an optimal balance between stress hormones and proinflammatory cytokines. In children with CP, the white matter damage may be ‘driving’ an immune-mediated inflammatory cascade. There is evi- dence supporting this possibility from three related stud- ies with CP patients, one using umbilical cord serum [1], one using plasma [9], and one using blood [11].
The current analysis expands the previous work and provides further description of the molecular milieu pre- sent in the CNS of CP patients. Such documentation pro- vides a unique opportunity to consider how differences in CNS concentrations of various inflammatory-relevant analytes between differing presentations of CP may be relevant for hypotheses about mechanisms underly- ing the differential outcomes in CP. Specifically, in this
sample, it was observed that Term Birth, Preterm Birth, and Extremely Preterm Birth status was associated with distinct patterns of analyte inter-correlations. If repro- ducibility of these findings could be established, there is an opportunity to better understand the mechanisms underlying various and varying outcomes specific to birth term in CP.
The correlations present in the participants suggest relationships among systems subserving arousal (orexin A), inflammation (TNFα), anti-inflammation (IL-1ra), and neuronal excitation (substance P), with distinctions depending on birth term. Orexin A (hypocretin 1) is an excitatory, hypothalamic neuropeptide that binds to both the orexin 1 and 2 receptors (OX1R and OX2R); the former is thought to act largely through the excitatory Gq protein and both are implicated in wakefulness and sleep cycle stability [14]. Narcoleptic symptoms in dogs and mice are associated with loss-of-function mutations in the gene encoding OX2R, although immunosuppres- sion can delay symptom onset, and deletion of the gene
Fig. 3 Visual representation of the direction and strength of the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between all 33 analytes assayed within the Preterm Birth subgroup. Positive (blue), negative (red), strong (dark shading), and weak (light shading) correlations are depicted
Page 9 of 13Goracke‑Postle et al. BMC Neurol (2021) 21:384
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!