Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Zonisamide compared to placebo for focal epilepsy

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison, Control

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 1: 50% responder rate ‐ whole treatment period

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 2: 50% responder rate ‐ best‐case scenario

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 3: 50% responder rate ‐ worst‐case scenario

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 4: 50% responder rate ‐ dose‐effect for Brodie 2005

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 5: 50% responder rate ‐ dose effect for Faught 2001

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 6: Withdrawal rates

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison 1: Zonisamide versus placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Zonisamide versus placebo

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques:

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Faught 2001

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Generated, Sequencing, Selection, Modification

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Guerrini 2013

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Titration, Clinical Proteomics, Sequencing, Selection

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Lu 2011

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Titration, Sequencing, Selection

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Sackellares 2004

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Clinical Proteomics, Generated, Capsules, Sequencing, Selection

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Schmidt 1993

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Clinical Proteomics, Generated, Capsules, Sequencing, Selection, Modification

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Wu 2010

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Comparison, Sequencing, Selection

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Zhang 2011

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Blocking Assay, Sequencing, Selection

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: Anderson 1988

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Titration

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: NCT00327717

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Titration, Biomarker Discovery

Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Zonisamide add‐on therapy for focal epilepsy

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001416.pub5

Figure Lengend Snippet: NCT01546688

Article Snippet: The tablets were randomly numbered by the study sponsors" Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is unclear whether the investigators, who were blinded, were also the outcome assessors Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk One participant was lost from each group, therefore, missing data were balanced between groups Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk No evidence of selective reporting Funding Source Low risk No sources of funding were used to assist in the conduct or preparation of this study, but the drug was provided for the trial by two different manufacturers of zonisamide (Eisai Co. Ltd and Shenzhen Zifu Co. Ltd) Conflicts of interest Unclear risk Not specified Other bias Low risk Both providers of zonisamide were manufacturers of the drug Open in a separate window Lu 2011 Study characteristics Methods Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study 2 treatment arms, 1 placebo, 1 zonisamide.

Techniques: Titration, Control

Journal: Development & Reproduction

Article Title: Effect of Pioglitazone on Production of Regulated upon Activation Normal T-cell Expressed and Secreted (RANTES) and IVF Outcomes in Infertile Women with Endometriosis

doi: 10.12717/DR.2013.17.3.207

Figure Lengend Snippet: Plasma RANTES levels in patients with endometriosis who underwent IVF-ET before and after pioglitazone treatment .

Article Snippet: In the pioglitazone treatment group, pioglitazone (Actos; Takeda, Osaka, Japan), 15 mg once daily, was given on the commencement day of GnRH-a administration to the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, Ovidrel; Serono, Geneva, Switzerland) injection.

Techniques:

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) concentration in serum of both the control and atopic dermatitis (AD) group (n = 6). The concentration was significantly reduced in the AD group compared with the control group. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (** P < 0.01 vs. control group). Differences between control and AD model group were estimated by ANOVA.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques: Concentration Assay

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Representative photographs showing a comparison of atopic dermatitis (AD) skin lesions in the control, AD, and leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) group (n = 7). The AD and LGI3 group are characterized by AD induction on day zero compared to the control group. LGI3 treatment attenuates AD compared to the AD group on day 15.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques:

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Effect of leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) treatment on % darkness and lichenification area in mice (n = 6). ( A ) Chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) skin lesions area featured with darkness and lichenification. ( B ) Improvement in chronic AD skin lesions in LGI3 compared to AD group ( B ). The alleviating effects on darkening and the lichenification area in LGI3 group were significant compared to the AD group. Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (* P < 0.05 vs. AD model). Differences between the control and AD model, LGI3 and the AD model group were estimated by ANOVA.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques:

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Dorsal skin thickness of mice from each group measured by a thickness gauge (n = 7). The dorsal skin thickness in the leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) group was not as thick as the atopic dermatitis (AD) group (0.71 ± 0.06 mm vs. 1.25 ± 0.36 mm). Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (** P < 0.01 vs. AD group). Differences between the control and AD model, LGI3 and AD model group were estimated by ANOVA.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques:

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Clinical score of atopic dermatitis (AD) skin lesions from each group of mice (n = 7). On day 15, elevated scoring atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) Index was observed in the AD group (9 ± 2 score) compared to the control group. Treatment with the leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) reversed this change (5.43 ± 0.53 score). Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques:

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Thickness of epithelial cell layer of dorsal skin measured by the light microscopy. Representative photomicrographs of dorsal skin on day 15 from each group of mice: H&E staining (100×, 200×, 400×). ( A ) Dorsal skin of the control group; ( B ) dorsal skin of the atopic dermatitis (AD) group; ( C ) dorsal skin of the leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) group. The thin arrow indicates the epithelial skin tissue and the thick arrow indicates parakeratosis. Remarkable suppressive effect has been demonstrated in abnormal epidermal thickness of dorsal skin (37.3 ± 8.75 μm, P < 0.01) in the LGI3 group (N = 7). Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (** P < 0.01 vs. AD model). Differences between the control and AD model, LGI3 and AD model group were estimated by ANOVA.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques: Light Microscopy, Staining

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) treatment ameliorates granulated mast cells in atopic dermatitis (AD) models. Representative photomicrographs of dorsal skin from each group of mice on day 15 (Toluidine blue staining 200×, 400×). ( A ) Dorsal skin of control group; ( B ) dorsal skin of AD group; ( C ) dorsal skin of LGI3 group. Thick arrows indicate granulated mast cells infiltrated into the skin tissue. The number of granulated mast cells was within 1 mm 2 . Infiltration of granulated mast cells in the AD model (11.00 ± 3.46, P < 0.01) was conspicuously much more than the control group (2.29 ± 0.95) and the LGI3 group (4.57 ± 2.15) (N = 7). Data are expressed as mean ± S.D. (** P < 0.01 vs. AD group). Differences between the control and AD model, LGI3 and AD model group were estimated by ANOVA.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques: Staining

Journal: Pharmaceutics

Article Title: The Suppressive Effect of Leucine-Rich Glioma Inactivated 3 (LGI3) Peptide on Impaired Skin Barrier Function in a Murine Model Atopic Dermatitis

doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12080750

Figure Lengend Snippet: Representative photomicrographs of dorsal skin from each group of mice on day 15 (Filaggrin antibody staining 400×). ( A ) dorsal skin of the control group; ( B ) dorsal skin of the atopic dermatitis (AD) group; ( C ) dorsal skin of the leucine-rich glioma inactivated 3 (LGI3) group. Brown stained part in the skin epithelium is from filament aggregating protein (FLG). A red indicator: Epithelial skin tissue. In the control group, FLG was evenly expressed in the epidermis, and the LGI3 group showed a high intensity of brown staining color in the epidermis.

Article Snippet: Experiment 2: All animals were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 7 for each group): Control group: not suffer from AD and received no treatment; AD group: suffered from AD and received treatment with mixture of 99% PBS (Sigma) and 1% PEG 400 (Sigma); and the LGI3 group: suffered from AD and received treatment with 1 mg/mL LGI3 peptide (Peptron, Daejeon, Korea) and a mixture of PBS and PEG 400.

Techniques: Staining

Journal: Aging (Albany NY)

Article Title: Cyclin A2 promotes DNA repair in the brain during both development and aging

doi: 10.18632/aging.100990

Figure Lengend Snippet: ( A ) Representative low-magnification images used for unbiased stereology quantification. The VZ/SVZ and CP are noted by arrows. Experimental conditions are indicated above. ( B ) Total VZ/SVZ and CP volume. At E14.5, the volumes of both structures in CCNA2 fl/fl , Nestin-cre animals were significantly reduced compared to controls. At E17.5, there was no statistical difference between groups. Quantifications represent Cavalieri unbiased stereology analysis of the entire brain. The y -axis is volume of the VZ/SVZ or CP. Unpaired t -test, * = p < 0.05, n.s. = not significant. For E14.5, n= 3 animals each for control and experimental groups. For E17.5, n=2 animals for control group and 3 animals for experimental group. ( C ) Total apoptotic cells in the VZ/SVZ and CP. At both ages, there was a significant increase in apoptosis in both structures. Quantifications represent Optical Fractionator unbiased stereology analysis of the entire brain at 100x magnification. The y -axis is total number of cleaved caspase 3-positive cells in the VZ/SVZ or CP. Unpaired t -test, * = p < 0.05. ( D ) Schematic of neural progenitor cell culture. Neural progenitors from the VZ/SVZ were dissected from P5 CCNA2 fl/fl pups and cultured as neurospheres. Neurospheres were dissociated and infected with adenovirus encoding cre and GFP to excise CCNA2 , or adenovirus encoding GFP only as a control. ( E ) CCNA2 fl/fl ablation in vitro . DNA from infected cells was amplified by PCR. Alleles represented by each band are indicated on the left, and Cre condition is above. ( F ) Cells were stained for GFP and Cre recombinase. Infection of neural progenitor cells results in >90% infection. Arrows indicate Cre-positive cells in F2. ( G ) Cells were infected as shown in ( F ). Cells were pulsed with BrdU for 30 minutes before fixation 48 and 72 hours after plating. The proportion of BrdU and pH3-positive cells was increased in CCNA2- null cells. ( H ) Quantification of BrdU-positive cells 48 and 72 hours after plating. The x -axis is time after plating, and the y -axis is the percentage of cells that incorporated BrdU. Unpaired t -test, * = p < 0.05. ( I ) Quantification of cell density 48 and 72 hours after plating. Forty-eight hours after plating, CCNA2 -null cells were less dense. There was no statistical difference between CCNA2 -null and control cells 72 hours after plating. ANOVA with Tukey's HSD, p values are noted on the plot. These data support that CCNA2- null neural stem cells are capable of reaching the carrying capacity of their respective stem cell niches. The x -axis is time after plating, and the y -axis is cell density. Error bars for all graphs represent standard errors of the mean (s.e.m.).

Article Snippet: For the proliferation assays, neurospheres were dissociated with trypsin to single cells and plated onto PDL/laminin coated chamber slides followed by infection with 1 μl adenovirus (adenovirus- GFP for control, adenovirus- cre-GFP as the experimental group, Vector Biolabs).

Techniques: Control, Cell Culture, Infection, In Vitro, Amplification, Staining