The causal relationship between COVID-19 and ten esophageal diseases: a study utilizing Mendelian randomization.

Background: Clinical signs of dysphagia, pancreatic achalasia, and esophagitis have been reported in patients with COVID-19. However, the causal relationship between COVID-19 and esophageal diseases is not clear. Therefore, we utilized Mendelian randomization to explore the potential association between COVID-19 and esophageal diseases. Methods: The summary statistics for a Genome-wide association study (GWAS) were obtained from The COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative, encompassing four types of COVID-19 as exposure: severe COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 versus ambulatory COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19 versus uninfected, and confirmed COVID-19. Additionally, summary statistics for ten esophageal diseases as outcomes were sourced from the GWAS Catalog and FinnGen databases. Univariate Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was utilized to thoroughly investigate and validate the potential causal association between COVID-19 and various esophageal conditions, including esophageal varices, Barrett's esophagus, esophagitis, esophageal obstruction, esophageal ulcer, esophageal perforation, gastroesophageal reflux, congenital esophageal malformations, benign esophageal tumors, and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Results: An inverse variance-weighted (IVW) model was utilized for univariate Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, which revealed that genetic liability in patients with confirmed COVID-19 was associated with esophageal obstruction (OR [95% CI]: 0.5275458 [0.2822400-0.9860563]; p-value = 0.0450699). Furthermore, a suggestive causal association was found between genetic liability and a reduced risk of benign esophageal tumors (OR [95% CI]: 0.2715453 [0.09368493-0.7870724]; p-value = 0.0163510), but with a suggestively increased risk of congenital esophageal malformations (OR [95% CI]: 6.959561 [1.1955828-40.51204]; p-value = 0.03086835). Additionally, genetic liability in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, compared to non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, was suggestively associated with an increased risk of esophagitis (OR [95% CI]: 1.443859 [1.0890568-1.914252]; p-value = 0.01068201). The reliability of these causal findings is supported by Cochran's Q statistic and the MR-Egger intercept test. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest the existence of a causal relationship between COVID-19 and esophageal diseases, highlighting differing risk effects of COVID-19 on distinct esophageal conditions.

GTSE1: A potential prognostic and diagnostic biomarker in various tumors including lung adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: This research was aimed to comprehensively investigate the expression levels, diagnostic and prognostic implications, and the relationship with immune infiltration of G2 and S phase-expressed-1 (GTSE1) across 33 tumor types, including lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), through gene expression profiling. METHODS: GTSE1 mRNA expression data together with clinical information were acquired from Xena database of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), ArrayExpress, and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database for this study. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to detect differences in GTSE1 expression between groups. The ability of GTSE1 to accurately predict cancer status was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) value for the receiver operating characteristic curve. Additionally, we investigated the predictive value of GTSE1 in individuals diagnosed with neoplasms using univariate Cox regression analysis as well as Kaplan-Meier curves. Furthermore, the correlation between GTSE1 expression and levels of immune infiltration was assessed by utilizing the Tumor Immune Estimate Resource (TIMER) database to calculate the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Finally, the pan-cancer analysis findings were validated by examining the association between GTSE1 expression and prognosis among patients with LUAD. RESULTS: GTSE1 exhibited significantly increased expression levels in a wide range of tumor tissues in contrast with normal tissues (p < 0.05). The expression of GTSE1 in various tumors was associated with clinical features, overall survival, and disease-specific survival (p < 0.05). In immune infiltration analyses, a strong correlation of the level of immune infiltration with the expression of GTSE1 was observed. Furthermore, GTSE1 demonstrated good discriminative and diagnostic value for most tumors. Additional experiments confirmed the relationship between elevated GTSE1 expression and unfavorable prognosis in individuals diagnosed with LUAD. These findings indicated the crucial role of GTSE1 expression level in influencing the development and immune infiltration of different types of tumors. CONCLUSIONS: GTSE1 might be a potential biomarker for the prognosis of pan-cancer. Meanwhile, it represented a promising target for immunotherapy.

The efficacy of regular penis-root masturbation, versus Kegel exercise in the treatment of primary premature ejaculation: A quasi-randomised controlled trial.

To explore the efficacy of regular penis-root masturbation (PRM) versus Kegel exercise (KE) in the treatment of primary premature ejaculation (PPE). This study was a prospective quasi-randomised controlled trial. Thirty-seven heterosexual males with PPE were selected according to the time sequence of outpatient consultations and the preliminary results of a pre-experiment and were assigned to an PRM group and a KE group. Differences in intravaginal ejaculatory latency times (IELTs) and premature ejaculation diagnostic tool (PEDT) scores were compared between the two groups. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Among the 37 PPE patients, 18 performed PRM and 19 patients performed KE. The IELTs of patients who performed PRM and KE were significantly prolonged before treatment, and the difference after treatment was statistically significant (p < .05). Compared with the KE group, the IELT prolongation effect in the PRM group was more significant PRM (p < .05). The PEDT scores of patients after performing PRM and KE were significantly lower than those before performing these exercises (p < .05). Compared with the KE group, the PEDT scores of the PRM group exhibited a greater decrease (p < .05). Thus, both PRM and KE have therapeutic effects on PPE. Compared with KE, PRM is more effective in the treatment of PPE.