Expression of the IL-11 Gene in Metastatic Cells Is Supported by Runx2-Smad and Runx2-cJun Complexes Induced by TGFβ1.

In tumor cells, two factors are abnormally increased that contribute to metastatic bone disease: Runx2, a transcription factor that promotes expression of metastasis related and osteolytic genes; and IL-11, a secreted osteolytic cytokine. Here, we addressed a compelling question: Does Runx2 regulate IL-11 gene expression? We find a positive correlation between Runx2, IL-11 and TGFβ1, a driver of the vicious cycle of metastatic bone disease, in prostate cancer (PC) cell lines representing early (LNCaP) and late (PC3) stage disease. Further, like Runx2 knockdown, IL-11 knockdown significantly reduced expression of several osteolytic factors. Modulation of Runx2 expression results in corresponding changes in IL-11 expression. The IL-11 gene has Runx2, AP-1 sites and Smad binding elements located on the IL-11 promoter. Here, we demonstrated that Runx2-c-Jun as well as Runx2-Smad complexes upregulate IL-11 expression. Functional studies identified a significant loss of IL-11 expression in PC3 cells in the presence of the Runx2-HTY mutant protein, a mutation that disrupts Runx2-Smad signaling. In response to TGFβ1 and in the presence of Runx2, we observed a 30-fold induction of IL-11 expression, accompanied by increased c-Jun binding to the IL-11 promoter. Immunoprecipitation and in situ co-localization studies demonstrated that Runx2 and c-Jun form nuclear complexes in PC3 cells. Thus, TGFβ1 signaling induces two independent transcriptional pathways - AP-1 and Runx2. These transcriptional activators converge on IL-11 as a result of Runx2-Smad and Runx2-c-Jun interactions to amplify IL-11 gene expression that, together with Runx2, supports the osteolytic pathology of cancer induced bone disease

Non-invasive diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as13C or14C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities. MAIN RESULTS: We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-13C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-14C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-13C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-13C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions

Evaluation of the Shear Strength Behavior of TDA Mixed with Fine and Coarse Aggregates for Backfilling around Buried Structures

Although some discarded tires are reused in various applications, a considerable number end up in landfills, where they pose diverse environmental problems. Waste tires that are shredded to produce tire-derived aggregates (TDA) can be reused in geotechnical engineering applications. Many studies have already been conducted to examine the behavior of pure TDA and soil-TDA mixtures. However, few studies have investigated the behavior of larger TDA particles, 20 to 75 mm in size, mixed with various types of soil at percentages ranging from 0% to 100%. In this study, TDA was mixed with gravelly, sandy, and clayey soils to determine the optimum soil-TDA mixtures for each soil type. A large-scale direct shear box (305 mm × 305 mm × 220 mm) was used, and the mixtures were examined with a series of direct shear tests at confining pressures of 50.1, 98.8, and 196.4 kPa. The test results indicated that the addition of TDA to the considered soils significantly reduces the dry unit weight, making the mixtures attractive for applications requiring lightweight fill materials. It was found that adding TDA to gravel decreases the shear resistance for all considered TDA contents. On the contrary, adding up to 10% TDA by weight to the sandy or clayey soils was found to increase the shear resistance of the mixtures. Adding up to 10% TDA by weight to the clayey soil also sharply increased the angle of internal friction from 18.8° to 32.3°. Moreover, it was also found that the addition of 25% TDA by weight to the gravelly or sandy soils can reduce the lateral earth pressure on buried structures by up to 20%. In comparison, adding 10% TDA to clay resulted in a 36% reduction in the lateral earth pressure