Given a passage, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Although evidence suggests that antiretroviral (ARV) regimens containing nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) are superior to single-protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens at suppressing viral load, it is unclear how much of the improved viral suppression is due to intrinsic drug potency versus higher levels of adherence to simpler regimens. We therefore examined adherence and viral suppression in NNRTI and single-PI regimens in a cohort of largely ARV-experienced participants by using objective measures of adherence.', "Participants were recruited from the Research on Access to Care in the Homeless (REACH) Cohort and were included in the study if they were on single-PI-based or NNRTI-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens for at least 3 months prior to study entry. Adherence was measured by unannounced pill counts at the participant's usual place of residence. The primary outcome was suppression of HIV viral RNA to <50 copies/mL.", 'Among 109 individuals who were followed for a median of 8.7 months, the odds of virologic suppression were approximately 8 times higher (p < .01) for participants on NNRTI-based regimens (n = 53) compared with those using single-PI-based regimens (n = 56) when controlling for adherence, as well as other potential confounders in a multivariable analysis. The only other independent predictors of viral suppression in multivariable modeling were ARV adherence (p < .01), CD4 nadir (p = .02), and continuous months on current regimen prior to the start of adherence monitoring (p < .01). There was no significant difference in adherence by unannounced pill counts in participants receiving NNRTI- versus single-PI-containing regimens.
Are higher rates of viral suppression with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors compared to single protease inhibitors explained by better adherence?

IQ-domain GTPase-activating protein 1 (IQGAP1) binds to Dishevelled (Dvl) and functions as a modulator of Dvl nuclear localization in Xenopus embryos. However, the relationship between IQGAP1 and Dvl in tumor tissues is unclear.', 'We used immunohistochemistry to assess the expressions of IQGAP1 and Dvl in a cohort of 111 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Association of their localization expressions with clinicopathological factors was also analyzed.', 'The positive rate of IQGAP1 in primary tumors was 48.6% (54/111) for its cytoplamic expression, 9.0% (10/111) for nuclear expression and 31.5% (35/111) for membranous expression; the positive rate of Dvl was 65.8% (73/111) for cytoplamic expression, 9.9% (11/111) for nuclear expression and 10.8% (12/111) for membranous expression. Coexpression rate of IQGAP1 and Dvl was 77.8% (42/54) in the cytoplasm, 80.0% (8/10) in the nucleus and 8.6% (3/35) in the membrane. Coexpression of IQGAP1 and Dvl in the cytoplasm and nucleus were significantly correlated (P<0.05), but not in the membrane (P>0.05). The positive expression rates of cyclin D1 and c-myc were significantly higher in the group of IQGAP1 and Dvl coexpression in the nucleus than that in the cytoplasm. Coexpression rate of IQGAP1 and Dvl in the cytoplasm and nucleus was significantly higher in lymph nodal metastases (63.3%, 19/30) than in primary growths (38.3%, 31/81), correlating with poor prognosis. Five-year survival time after resection in the group with their coexpression in the cytoplasm and nucleus was significantly lower than that with no coexpression (44.705±3.355 vs 58.403±2.543 months, p<0.05).
Is coexpression of IQ-domain GTPase-activating protein 1 ( IQGAP1 ) and Dishevelled ( Dvl ) correlated with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer?

More and more experiments have shown that transcription and mRNA processing are not two independent events but are tightly coupled to each other. Both promoter and transcription rate were found to influence alternative splicing. More than half of human genes have alternative promoters, but it is still not clear why there are so many alternative promoters and what their biological roles are.', 'In this study, we explored whether there is a functional correlation between alternative promoters and alternative splicing by a genome-wide analysis of human and mouse genes. We constructed a large data set of genes with alternative promoter and alternative splicing annotations. By analyzing these genes, we showed that genes with alternative promoters tended to demonstrate alternative splicing compare to genes with single promoter, and, genes with more alternative promoters tend to have more alternative splicing variants. Furthermore, transcripts from different alternative promoters tended to splice differently.

Do alternative promoters influence alternative splicing at the genomic level?

