Background: Toxin-antitoxin complexes autoregulate transcription depending upon growth conditions. Results: DinJ-YafQ structure was determined, and minimal requirements for transcriptional autorepression were identified. Conclusion:The dinJyafQ operon is regulated in a novel manner by either DinJ-YafQ-or LexA-mediated repression. Significance: Our results reveal new mechanistic insights into the action of DinJ-YafQ as a transcriptional repressor.

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a disease defined by elevated intracranial pressure without established etiology. Although there is now consensus on the definition of the disorder, its complex pathophysiology remains elusive. The most common clinical symptoms of IIH include headache and visual complaints. Many current theories regarding the etiology of IIH focus on increased secretion or decreased absorption of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and on cerebral venous outflow obstruction due to venous sinus stenosis. In addition, it has been postulated that obesity plays a role, given its prevalence in this population of patients. Several treatments, including optic nerve sheath fenestration, CSF diversion with ventriculoperitoneal or lumboperitoneal shunts, and more recently venous sinus stenting, have been described for medically refractory IIH. Despite the availability of these treatments, no guidelines or standard management algorithms exist for the treatment of this disorder. In this paper, the authors provide a review of the literature on IIH, its clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and evidence supporting treatment strategies, with a specific focus on the role of venous sinus stenting.

No abstract

No abstract

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect 1 Blinding of participants and personnel was not done in this open-label study. This can potentially a ect assessment of this outcome. Downgraded by 1.2 Only 1 study, hence no 'inconsistency' and no 'publication bias'. 3 Wide CI, downgraded by 1. 4 Allocation concealment not stated, which could potentially introduce selection bias. Blinding of participants and personnel was not done in this open-label study.