Mutations in sphingosine-1-phosphate lyase cause nephrosis with ichthyosis and adrenal insufficiency

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) causes 15% of chronic kidney disease cases. A mutation in 1 of over 40 monogenic genes can be detected in approximately 30% of individuals with SRNS whose symptoms manifest before 25 years of age. However, in many patients, the genetic etiology remains unknown. Here, we have performed whole exome sequencing to identify recessive causes of SRNS. In 7 families with SRNS and facultative ichthyosis, adrenal insufficiency, immunodeficiency, and neurological defects, we identified 9 different recessive mutations in SGPL1, which encodes sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) lyase. All mutations resulted in reduced or absent SGPL1 protein and/or enzyme activity. Overexpression of cDNA representing SGPL1 mutations resulted in subcellular mislocalization of SGPL1. Furthermore, expression of WT human SGPL1 rescued growth of SGPL1-deficient dpl1. yeast strains, whereas expression of disease-associated variants did not. Immunofluorescence revealed SGPL1 expression in mouse podocytes and mesangial cells. Knockdown of Sgpl1 in rat mesangial cells inhibited cell migration, which was partially rescued by VPC23109, an S1P receptor antagonist. In Drosophila, Sply mutants, which lack SGPL1, displayed a phenotype reminiscent of nephrotic syndrome in nephrocytes. WT Sply, but not the disease-associated variants, rescued this phenotype. Together, these results indicate that SGPL1 mutations cause a syndromic form of SRNS

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Mutations in sphingosine-1-phosphate lyase cause nephrosis with ichthyosis and adrenal insufficiency

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) causes 15% of chronic kidney disease cases. A mutation in 1 of over 40 monogenic genes can be detected in approximately 30% of individuals with SRNS whose symptoms manifest before 25 years of age. However, in many patients, the genetic etiology remains unknown. Here, we have performed whole exome sequencing to identify recessive causes of SRNS. In 7 families with SRNS and facultative ichthyosis, adrenal insufficiency, immunodeficiency, and neurological defects, we identified 9 different recessive mutations in SGPL1, which encodes sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) lyase. All mutations resulted in reduced or absent SGPL1 protein and/or enzyme activity. Overexpression of cDNA representing SGPL1 mutations resulted in subcellular mislocalization of SGPL1. Furthermore, expression of WT human SGPL1 rescued growth of SGPL1-deficient dpl1. yeast strains, whereas expression of disease-associated variants did not. Immunofluorescence revealed SGPL1 expression in mouse podocytes and mesangial cells. Knockdown of Sgpl1 in rat mesangial cells inhibited cell migration, which was partially rescued by VPC23109, an S1P receptor antagonist. In Drosophila, Sply mutants, which lack SGPL1, displayed a phenotype reminiscent of nephrotic syndrome in nephrocytes. WT Sply, but not the disease-associated variants, rescued this phenotype. Together, these results indicate that SGPL1 mutations cause a syndromic form of SRNS

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate, and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response