The clinical pharmacist and research

Radical pair state in photosystem II

A stable light-induced EPR signal is reported in photosystem II particles and in chloroplasts at 5 K. Characteristic spectral features indicate that the signal arises from dipole-dipole interactions of a radical pair triplet state. From its dependence on potential, its relationship to the spin-polarized triplet state, and the redox state of the pheophytin acceptor (Ph) and because it is present in Tris-washed chloroplasts but not in untreated chloroplasts, we conclude that the signal is formed when the reaction center is in the state D(+)P(680)Ph(-) (P(680) is the primary chlorophyll donor and D(+) is an oxidized donor to P(680)). The low-temperature photochemical sequence is thought to occur as follows. (i) Donation from D to the P(680) (+)Ph(-) state occurs at liquid helium temperature in low quantum yield; this reaction is reversible at temperatures above 5 K. (ii) In normal chloroplasts, donation occurs to the D(+)P(680)Ph(-) state, but this does not occur in Tris-washed chloroplasts or in the photosystem II particles at 77 K or lower. (iii) Illumination, at 200 K, of photosystem particles or Tris-washed chloroplasts results in donation to the D(+)P(680)Ph(-) state from another donor. From experiments in the absence of redox mediators and the temperatures dependence of the splitting of the signal, it is suggested that the state D(+)P(680)Ph(-) itself may be the origin of the radical pair triplet signal. The signal has been simulated by assuming the presence of at least two distinct radical pairs that differ slightly in the distance separating the radicals of the pairs. The distance between the radicals of the pair is calculated to be 6-7 A.

Research publication by pharmacist authors in major medical journals: changes over a 10-year interval

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the degree to which pharmacists were involved in major clinical research publications in 1993 and 2003, and to compare the difference in publication rates by pharmacists between these 2 years.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Thirty-seven medical journals that had high readership, had a focus on original research, were clinically oriented, and were highly regarded by the research community.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Selection of the medical journals was first determined by those having the highest impact factors. Then journals with regular publication of original clinical research and listings of authors' degrees or licensure were included. All original research articles in these journals were reviewed for both 1993 and 2003. The primary outcome was the presence of a pharmacist as an author of one of their research articles in each of those 2 years. For those articles, the following data were collected: study subjects, study design, authors' affiliations, source of research funding, and position of author (first and/or corresponding). The primary outcome was analyzed by using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Other outcomes were compared between 1993 and 2003 by using a chi(2) test. The number of clinical research articles identified was 8127 in 1993 and 8793 in 2003. The median (mean, interquartile range) number of authors/article increased from 5 (5.3, 3-7) in 1993 to 6 (6.6, 4-8) in 2003 (p<0.01). There were 191 pharmacist-authored papers (2.4%) in 1993, compared with 271 (3.1%) in 2003, for a relative increase of 29.2%. Adjusting for the increase seen in the number of authors during that period, the odds ratio that a pharmacist was an author in 2003 compared with 1993 was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.53). Most (94.2%) pharmacist-authored papers described studies involving human subjects. The proportion of clinical pharmacists (but not the number) serving as the primary author declined over time, from 36.6% (70/191) in 1993 to 27.3% (74/271) in 2003 (p=0.041). The most frequent funding sources were industry (from 38.2% in 1993 to 39.5% in 2003) and federal (from 25.1% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2003); however, the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase was noted in the proportion of publications involving pharmacists as an author in major medical journals in 2003 compared with 1993. Pharmacists must continue to be active in clinical research, with adequate training and funding remaining significant obstacles.

Pharmacists as Laboratory-Based Researchers

Pharmacists are presently involved in many areas of laboratory-based drug research. Major areas of research interest include drug assay, drug stability, protein binding studies, phenotyping, and in vitro assessment of antimicrobials. While pharmacy training provides excellent background training for laboratory-based research, further training is indicated to develop laboratory research skills. This paper discusses qualifications of pharmacists as researchers and provides a brief review of some of the areas of research currently pursued by many laboratory-based pharmacist-researchers

The clinical pharmacist in drug research and development: the publication record

A viable discipline requires the generation of new information. Clinical pharmacists have recognized that their success depends on their ability to contribute to (Table: see text) the expansion of the body of knowledge of their discipline. They have developed practice and research programs in a variety of areas. One of the results of these programs is the publication of articles in a variety of pharmacy and medical journals. Clinical pharmacists with specialty interests publish in journals that represent those interests. In comparing the type of clinical pharmacists' publications in the area of drug development, it is also clear that they are most suited for research in the clinical phase; that is, clinical pharmacists conduct research on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety and efficacy of new and old drugs. Clinical pharmacists tend to be members of research teams but bring a unique perspective to the team. In their collaboration with physicians, basic scientists, and other health-care personnel, clinical pharmacists are often cited as first author. Their research is important to researchers with similar specialty interests, regardless of whether they are pharmacists. Data retrieval has developed so that researchers with similar interests can identify key publications wherever they are published. Articles published by clinical pharmacists in pharmacy journals are quoted by other researchers. Therefore, I conclude that a number of clinical pharmacists are active in drug research and development. Many of these pharmacists were trained as practitioners, but have developed into researchers through trial and error and hard work.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)