Familial aggregation of gout and relative genetic and environmental contributions: a nationwide population study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE: To examine familial aggregation of gout and to estimate the heritability and environmental contributions to gout susceptibility in the general population. METHODS: Using data from the National Health Insurance (NHI) Research Database in Taiwan, we conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study of data collected from 22 643 748 beneficiaries of the NHI in 2004; among them 1 045 059 individuals had physician-diagnosed gout. We estimated relative risks (RR) of gout in individuals with affected first-degree and second-degree relatives and relative contributions of genes (heritability), common environment shared by family members and non-shared environment to gout susceptibility. RESULTS: RRs for gout were significantly higher in individuals with affected first-degree relatives (men, 1.91 (95% CI 1.90 to 1.93); women, 1.97 (95% CI 1.94 to 1.99)) and also in those with affected second-degree relatives (men, 1.27 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.31); women, 1.40 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.46)). RRs (95% CIs) for individuals with an affected twin, sibling, offspring, parent, grandchild, nephew/niece, uncle/aunt and grandparent were 8.02 (6.95 to 9.26), 2.59 (2.54 to 2.63), 1.96 (1.95 to 1.97), 1.93 (1.91 to 1.94), 1.48 (1.43 to 1.53), 1.40 (1.32 to 1.47), 1.31 (1.24 to 1.39), and 1.26 (1.21 to 1.30), respectively. The relative contributions of heritability, common and non-shared environmental factors to phenotypic variance of gout were 35.1, 28.1 and 36.8% in men and 17.0, 18.5 and 64.5% in women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study confirms that gout aggregates within families. The risk of gout is higher in people with a family history. Genetic and environmental factors contribute to gout aetiology, and the relative contributions are sexually dimorphic

Levosimendan Administration in Limb Ischemia: Multicomponent Signaling Serving Kidney Protection

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Acute renal failure is a severe complication of lower extremity major arterial reconstructions, which could even be fatal. Levosimendan is a dual-acting positive inotropic and vasodilatory agent, which is suspected to have protective effects against cardiac ischemia. However, there is no data available on lower limb or remote organ ischemic injuries therefore the aim of the study was to investigate the effect of levosimendan on lower limb ischemia-reperfusion injury and the corollary renal dysfunction. METHODS: Male Wistar rats underwent 180 min bilateral lower limb ischemia followed by 4 or 24 hours of reperfusion. Intravenous Levosimendan was administered continuously (0.2mug/bwkg/min) throughout the whole course of ischemia and the first 3h of reperfusion. Results were compared with sham-operated and ischemia-reperfusion groups. Hemodynamic monitoring was performed by invasive arterial blood pressure measurement. Kidney and lower limb muscle microcirculation was registered by a laser Doppler flowmeter. After 4h and 24h of reperfusion, serum, urine and histological samples were collected. RESULTS: Systemic hemodynamic parameters and microcirculation of kidney and the lower limb significantly improved in the Levosimendan treated group. Muscle viability was significantly preserved 4 and 24 hours after reperfusion. At the same time, renal functional laboratory tests and kidney histology demonstrated significantly less expressive kidney injury in Levosimendan groups. TNF-alpha levels were significantly less elevated in the Levosimendan group 4 hours after reperfusion. CONCLUSION: The results claim a protective role for Levosimendan administration during major vascular surgeries to prevent renal complications

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field