cv. Tendergreen) exhibit resistance to the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum). A proteomic analysis was carried out to compare seeds from GM pea lines expressing the bean alpha AI1 protein and the corresponding alpha AI1-free segregating lines and non-GM parental line to identify unintended alterations to the proteome of GM peas due to the introduction of the gene for alpha AI1. Proteomic analysis showed

that in addition to the presence of alpha AI1, 33 other proteins were differentially accumulated in the alpha AI1-expressing GM lines compared with their non-GM parental line and these were grouped into five expression classes. Among these 33 proteins, only three were found to be associated with the expression of check details alpha AI1 in the GM pea lines. The accumulation of the remaining 30 proteins appears to be associated with Agrobacterium-mediated transformation events. Sixteen proteins were identified after MALDI-TOF-TOF analysis. About 56% of the identified proteins with altered accumulation in the

GM pea were storage proteins including legumin, vicilin or convicilin, phaseolin, cupin and valosin-containing protein. Two proteins were uniquely expressed in the alpha AI1-expressing GM lines and one new protein was present in both the alpha AI1-expressing GM lines and their alpha AI1-free segregating lines, suggesting that both transgenesis and transformation events led to demonstrable changes in the proteomes of the GM lines tested.”
“BACKGROUND: The importance of evidence-based medicine has been CA3 well documented and supported across various surgical subspecialties.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the levels of evidence across publications in the neurosurgical literature, to assess the change in evidence over time, and to indicate predictive factors of higher-level evidence.

METHODS: We reviewed the levels of evidence across published clinical studies in 3 neurosurgical journals from 2009 to 2010. Randomized trials were evaluated by use of the Detsky Quality of Reporting Scale. Levels-of-evidence data for the same journals

in 1999 were obtained from the literature, and regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for higher-level evidence.

RESULTS: Of 660 eligible articles, 14 (2.1%) were Level I, 54 (8.2%) were Level II, 73 (11.1%) unless were Level III, 287 (43.5%) were Level IV, and 232 (35.2%) were Level V. The number of Level I studies decreased significantly between 1999 and 2010 (3.4% vs 2.1%, respectively; P = .01). Seven randomized clinical trials were identified, and 1 trial had significant methodological limitations (Mean Detsky Index = 16.3; SD = 1.8). Publications with larger sample size were significantly associated with higher levels of evidence (Levels I and II; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-2.05; P = .001). The ratio of higher levels of evidence to lower levels was 0.11.