Superior Neuroprotective Efficacy of LAU-0901, a Novel Platelet-Activating Factor Antagonist, in Experimental Stroke

Platelet-activating factor (PAF) accumulates during cerebral ischemia, and inhibition of this process plays a critical role in neuronal survival. Recently, we demonstrated that LAU-0901, a novel PAF receptor antagonist, is neuroprotective in experimental stroke. We used magnetic resonance imaging in conjunction with behavior and immunohistopathology to expand our understanding of this novel therapeutic approach. Sprague–Dawley rats received 2 h middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo) and were treated with LAU-0901 (60 mg/kg) or vehicle 2 h from MCAo onset. Behavioral function, T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), and apparent diffusion coefficients were performed on days 1, 3, and 7 after MCAo. Infarct volume and number of GFAP, ED-1, and NeuN-positive cells were conducted on day 7. Behavioral deficit was significantly improved by LAU-0901 treatment compared to vehicle on days 1, 3, and 7. Total lesion volumes computed from T2WI were significantly reduced by LAU-0901 on days 1, 3, and 7 (by 83%, 90%, and 96%, respectively), which was consistent with decreased edema formation. Histopathology revealed that LAU-0901 treatment resulted in significant reduction of cortical and subcortical infarct volumes, attenuated microglial infiltration, and promoted astrocytic and neuronal survival. These findings suggest LAU-0901 is a promising neuroprotectant and provide the basis for future therapeutics in patients suffering ischemic stroke

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Comparison Between Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist and Pressure Support Ventilation Levels in Terms of Respiratory Effort

OBJECTIVES: To understand the potential equivalence between neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and pressure support ventilation levels in terms of respiratory muscle unloading. To compare the respiratory pattern, variability, synchronization, and neuromuscular coupling within comparable ranges of assistance. DESIGN: Prospective single-center physiologic study. SETTING: A 13-bed university medical ICU. PATIENTS: Eleven patients recovering from respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: The following levels of assistance were consecutively applied in a random order: neurally adjusted ventilatory assist levels: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, and 7 cm H2O/muvolt; pressure support levels: 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25 cm H2O. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Flow, airway pressure, esophageal pressures, and peak electrical activity of the diaphragm were continuously recorded. Breathing effort was calculated. To express the percentage of assist assumed by the ventilator, the total pressure including muscular and ventilator pressure was calculated. The median percentage of assist ranged from 33% (24-47%) to 82% (72-90%) between pressure support 7 and 25 cm H2O. Similar levels of unloading were observed for neurally adjusted ventilatory assist levels from 0.5 cm H2O/muvolt (46% [40-51%]) to 2.5 cm H2O/muvolt (80% [74-84%]). Tidal variability was higher during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and ineffective efforts appeared only in pressure support. In neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, double triggering occurred sometimes when electrical activity of the diaphragm signal depicted a biphasic aspect, and an abnormal oscillatory pattern was frequently observed from 4 cm H2O/muvolt. For both modes, the relationship between peak electrical activity of the diaphragm and muscle pressure depicted a curvilinear profile. CONCLUSIONS: In patients recovering from acute respiratory failure, levels of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist between 0.5 and 2.5 cm H2O/muvolt are comparable to pressure support levels ranging from 7 to 25 cm H2O in terms of respiratory muscle unloading. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist provides better patient-ventilator interactions but can be sometimes excessively sensitive to electrical activity of the diaphragm in terms of triggering

Patient-ventilator asynchrony during noninvasive ventilation: a bench and clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Different kinds of ventilators are available to perform noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in ICUs. Which type allows the best patient-ventilator synchrony is unknown. The objective was to compare patient-ventilator synchrony during NIV between ICU, transport-both with and without the NIV algorithm engaged-and dedicated NIV ventilators. METHODS: First, a bench model simulating spontaneous breathing efforts was used to assess the respective impact of inspiratory and expiratory leaks on cycling and triggering functions in 19 ventilators. Second, a clinical study evaluated the incidence of patient-ventilator asynchronies in 15 patients during three randomized, consecutive, 20-min periods of NIV using an ICU ventilator with and without its NIV algorithm engaged and a dedicated NIV ventilator. Patient-ventilator asynchrony was assessed using flow, airway pressure, and respiratory muscles surface electromyogram recordings. RESULTS: On the bench, frequent auto-triggering and delayed cycling occurred in the presence of leaks using ICU and transport ventilators. NIV algorithms unevenly minimized these asynchronies, whereas no asynchrony was observed with the dedicated NIV ventilators in all except one. These results were reproduced during the clinical study: The asynchrony index was significantly lower with a dedicated NIV ventilator than with ICU ventilators without or with their NIV algorithm engaged (0.5% [0.4%-1.2%] vs 3.7% [1.4%-10.3%] and 2.0% [1.5%-6.6%], P < .01), especially because of less auto-triggering. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated NIV ventilators allow better patient-ventilator synchrony than ICU and transport ventilators, even with their NIV algorithm. However, the NIV algorithm improves, at least slightly and with a wide variation among ventilators, triggering and/or cycling off synchronization