Evolutionary origins of the estrogen signaling system : insights from amphioxus

Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2011. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Elsevier B.V. for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 127 (2011): 176–188, doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.03.022.Classically, the estrogen signaling system has two core components: cytochrome P450 aromatase (CYP19), the enzyme complex that catalyzes the rate limiting step in estrogen biosynthesis; and estrogen receptors (ERs), ligand activated transcription factors that interact with the regulatory region of target genes to mediate the biological effects of estrogen. While the importance of estrogens for regulation of reproduction, development and physiology has been well-documented in gnathostome vertebrates, the evolutionary origins of estrogen as a hormone are still unclear. As invertebrates within the phylum Chordata, cephalochordates (e.g. the amphioxus of the genus Branchiostoma) are among the closest invertebrate relatives of the vertebrates and can provide critical insight into the evolution of vertebrate-specific molecules and pathways. To address this question, this paper briefly reviews relevant earlier studies that help to illuminate the history of the aromatase and ER genes, with a particular emphasis on insights from amphioxus and other invertebrates. We then present new analyses of amphioxus aromatase and ER sequence and function, including an in silico model of the amphioxus aromatase protein, and CYP19 gene analysis. CYP19 shares a conserved gene structure with vertebrates (9 coding exons) and moderate sequence conservation (40% amino acid identity with human CYP19). Modeling of the amphioxus aromatase substrate binding site and simulated docking of androstenedione in comparison to the human aromatase shows that the substrate binding site is conserved and predicts that androstenedione could be a substrate for amphioxus CYP19. The amphioxus ER is structurally similar to vertebrate ERs, but differs in sequence and key residues of the ligand binding domain. Consistent with results from other laboratories, amphioxus ER did not bind radiolabeled estradiol, nor did it modulate gene expression on an estrogen-responsive element (ERE) in the presence 59 of estradiol, 4-hydroxytamoxifen, diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A or genistein. Interestingly, it has been shown that a related gene, the amphioxus “steroid receptor” (SR), can be activated by estrogens and that amphioxus ER can repress this activation. CYP19, ER and SR are all primarily expressed in gonadal tissue, suggesting an ancient paracrine/autocrinesignaling role, but it is not yet known how their expression is regulated and, if estrogen is actually synthesized in amphioxus, whether it has a role in mediating any biological effects . Functional studies are clearly needed to link emerging bioinformatics and in vitro molecular biology results with organismal physiology to develop an understanding of the evolution of estrogen signaling.Supported by grants from the NIEHS P42 ES07381 (GVC, SV) and EPA (STAR-RD831301) (GVC), a Ruth L Kirschstein National Research Service Award (AT, F32 ES013092-01), an NIH traineeship (SS, SG), a NATO Fellowship (AN) and the Boston University Undergraduate Research Program (LC)

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

17β-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (17β-HSD) in scleractinian corals and zooxanthellae

Author Posting. © The Authors, 2005. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Elsevier B.V. for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 143 (2006): 397-403, doi:10.1016/j.cbpb.2005.12.017.Steroid metabolism studies have yielded evidence of 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (17β-HSD) activity in corals. This project was undertaken to clarify whether there are multiple isoforms of 17β-HSD, whether activity levels vary seasonally, and if zooxanthellae contribute to activity. 17β-HSD activity was characterized in zooxanthellate and azooxanthellate coral fragments collected in summer and winter and in zooxanthellae cultured from M. capitata. More specifically, 17β-HSD activity was characterized with regard to steroid substrate and inhibitor specificity, coenzyme specificity, and Michaelis constants for estradiol (E2) and NADP+. Six samples each of M. capitata and T. coccinea (three summer, three winter) were assayed with E2 and NADP+. Specific activity levels (pmol/mg protein) varied 10-fold among M. capitata samples and 6-fold among T. coccinea samples. There was overlap of activity levels between summer and winter samples. NADP+/NAD+ activity ratios varied from 1.6 to 22.2 for M. capatita, 2.3 to 3.8 for T. coccinea and 0.7 to 1.1 for zooxanthellae. Coumestrol was the most inhibitory of the steroids and phytoestrogens tested. Our data confirm that corals and zooxanthellae contain 17β-HSD and are consistent with the presence of more than one isoform of the enzyme.Support for this work was provided by the EPA STAR fellowship program and the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program