Distinct but overlapping roles of LRRTM1 and LRRTM2 in developing and mature hippocampal circuits

LRRTMs are postsynaptic cell adhesion proteins that have region-restricted expression in the brain. To determine their role in the molecular organization of synapses in vivo, we studied synapse development and plasticity in hippocampal neuronal circuits in mice lacking both Lrrtm1 and Lrrtm2. We found that LRRTM1 and LRRTM2 regulate the density and morphological integrity of excitatory synapses on CA1 pyramidal neurons in the developing brain but are not essential for these roles in the mature circuit. Further, they are required for long-term-potentiation in the CA3-CA1 pathway and the dentate gyrus, and for enduring fear memory in both the developing and mature brain. Our data show that LRRTM1 and LRRTM2 regulate synapse development and function in a cell-type and developmental-stage-specific manner, and thereby contribute to the fine-tuning of hippocampal circuit connectivity and plasticity

RNA-Seq Mapping and Detection of Gene Fusions with a Suffix Array Algorithm

High-throughput RNA sequencing enables quantification of transcripts (both known and novel), exon/exon junctions and fusions of exons from different genes. Discovery of gene fusions–particularly those expressed with low abundance– is a challenge with short- and medium-length sequencing reads. To address this challenge, we implemented an RNA-Seq mapping pipeline within the LifeScope software. We introduced new features including filter and junction mapping, annotation-aided pairing rescue and accurate mapping quality values. We combined this pipeline with a Suffix Array Spliced Read (SASR) aligner to detect chimeric transcripts. Performing paired-end RNA-Seq of the breast cancer cell line MCF-7 using the SOLiD system, we called 40 gene fusions among over 120,000 splicing junctions. We validated 36 of these 40 fusions with TaqMan assays, of which 25 were expressed in MCF-7 but not the Human Brain Reference. An intra-chromosomal gene fusion involving the estrogen receptor alpha gene ESR1, and another involving the RPS6KB1 (Ribosomal protein S6 kinase beta-1) were recurrently expressed in a number of breast tumor cell lines and a clinical tumor sample

Why Functional Pre-Erythrocytic and Bloodstage Malaria Vaccines Fail: A Meta-Analysis of Fully Protective Immunizations and Novel Immunological Model

Background: Clinically protective malaria vaccines consistently fail to protect adults and children in endemic settings, and at best only partially protect infants. Methodology/Principal Findings: We identify and evaluate 1916 immunization studies between 1965-February 2010, and exclude partially or nonprotective results to find 177 completely protective immunization experiments. Detailed reexamination reveals an unexpectedly mundane basis for selective vaccine failure: live malaria parasites in the skin inhibit vaccine function. We next show published molecular and cellular data support a testable, novel model where parasite-host interactions in the skin induce malaria-specific regulatory T cells, and subvert early antigen-specific immunity to parasite-specific immunotolerance. This ensures infection and tolerance to reinfection. Exposure to Plasmodium-infected mosquito bites therefore systematically triggers immunosuppression of endemic vaccine-elicited responses. The extensive vaccine trial data solidly substantiate this model experimentally. Conclusions/Significance: We conclude skinstage-initiated immunosuppression, unassociated with bloodstage parasites, systematically blocks vaccine function in the field. Our model exposes novel molecular and procedural strategies to significantly and quickly increase protective efficacy in both pipeline and currently ineffective malaria vaccines, and forces fundamental reassessment of central precepts determining vaccine development. This has major implications fo

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

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

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Peer reviewe

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570