Unveiling novel genes upregulated by both rhBMP2 and rhBMP7 during early osteoblastic transdifferentiation of C2C12 cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We set out to analyse the gene expression profile of pre-osteoblastic C2C12 cells during osteodifferentiation induced by both rhBMP2 and rhBMP7 using DNA microarrays. Induced and repressed genes were intercepted, resulting in 1,318 induced genes and 704 repressed genes by both rhBMP2 and rhBMP7. We selected and validated, by RT-qPCR, 24 genes which were upregulated by rhBMP2 and rhBMP7; of these, 13 are related to transcription (<it>Runx2, Dlx1, Dlx2, Dlx5, Id1, Id2, Id3, Fkhr1, Osx, Hoxc8, Glis1, Glis3 </it>and <it>Cfdp1</it>), four are associated with cell signalling pathways (<it>Lrp6, Dvl1, Ecsit </it>and <it>PKCδ</it>) and seven are associated with the extracellular matrix (<it>Ltbp2, Grn, Postn, Plod1, BMP1, Htra1 </it>and <it>IGFBP-rP10</it>). The novel identified genes include: <it>Hoxc8, Glis1, Glis3, Ecsit, PKCδ, LrP6, Dvl1, Grn, BMP1, Ltbp2, Plod1, Htra1 </it>and <it>IGFBP-rP10</it>.</p> <p>Background</p> <p>BMPs (bone morphogenetic proteins) are members of the TGFβ (transforming growth factor-β) super-family of proteins, which regulate growth and differentiation of different cell types in various tissues, and play a critical role in the differentiation of mesenchymal cells into osteoblasts. In particular, rhBMP2 and rhBMP7 promote osteoinduction <it>in vitro </it>and <it>in vivo</it>, and both proteins are therapeutically applied in orthopaedics and dentistry.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using DNA microarrays and RT-qPCR, we identified both previously known and novel genes which are upregulated by rhBMP2 and rhBMP7 during the onset of osteoblastic transdifferentiation of pre-myoblastic C2C12 cells. Subsequent studies of these genes in C2C12 and mesenchymal or pre-osteoblastic cells should reveal more details about their role during this type of cellular differentiation induced by BMP2 or BMP7. These studies are relevant to better understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying osteoblastic differentiation and bone repair.</p

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. METHODS: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. FINDINGS: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2-11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75-1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58-1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70-1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50-0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38-0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45-0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. FUNDING: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Expression, Purification, Bioactivity, and Partial Characterization of a Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-7 Produced in Human 293T Cells

Bone morphogenetic protein-7 (BMP-7) is a secreted multifunctional growth factor of the TGF-beta superfamily, which is predominantly known for its osteoinductive properties and emerging potential for treatment of kidney diseases. The mature 34-38 kDa disulfide-linked homodimer protein plays a key role in the differentiation of mesenchymal cells into bone and cartilage. In this study, the full-length sequence of hBMP-7 was amplified and, then, cloned, expressed, and purified from the conditioned medium of 293T cells stably transfected with a lentiviral vector. The mature protein dimer form was properly secreted and recognized by anti-BMP-7 antibodies, and the protein was shown to be glycosilated by treatment with exoglycosidase, followed by western blotting. Moreover, the activity of the purified protein was demonstrated both in vitro, by alkaline phosphatase activity in C2C12 cells, and in vivo by induction of ectopic bone formation in Balb/c Nude mice after 21 days, respectively. This recombinant protein platform may be very useful for expression of different human cytokines and other proteins for medical applications.FINEPFinanciadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP)CNPqConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)CAPESCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Sao Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP)SIN-Implant System CompanySIN-Implant System Compan

NUCEL (Cell and Molecular Therapy Center): A multidisciplinary center for translational research in Brazil

Social and economical development is closely associated with technological innovation and a well-developed biotechnological industry. In the last few years, Brazil`s scientific production has been steadily increasing; however, the number of patents is lagging behind, with technological and translational research requiring governmental incentive and reinforcement. The Cell and Molecular Therapy Center (NUCEL) was created to develop activities in the translational research field, addressing concrete problems found in biomedical and veterinary areas and actively searching for solutions by employing a genetic engineering approach to generate cell lines over-expressing recombinant proteins to be transferred to local biotech companies, aiming at furthering the development of a national competence for local production of biopharmaceuticals of widespread use and of life-saving importance. To this end, mammalian cell engineering technologies were used to generate cell lines over-expressing several different recombinant proteins of biomedical and biotechnological interest, namely, recombinant human Amylin/IAPP for diabetes treatment, human FVIII and FIX clotting factors for hemophilia, human and bovine FSH for fertility and reproduction, and human bone repair proteins (BMPs). Expression of some of these proteins is also being sought with the baculovirus/insect cell system (BEVS) which, in many cases, is able to deliver high-yield production of recombinant proteins with biological activity comparable to that of mammalian systems, but in a much more cost-effective manner. Transfer of some of these recombinant products to local Biotech companies has been pursued by taking advantage of the Sao Paulo State Foundation (FAPESP) and Federal Government (FINEP, CNPq) incentives for joint Research Development and Innovation partnership projects

Para um novo estado de bem estar na América Latina For a new welfare state in Latin America

Os determinantes políticos e econômicos para um novo Estado de bem estar social na América Latina e os desafios que essa tarefa propõe são discutidos com base no exame da políticas sociais no contexto do ajuste estrutural em curso nas economias latinoamericanos.<br>The political and economic determinants of a new welfare state in Latin America and the challenges put forward by this task are discussed on the basis of an analysis of the social policies in the context of the context of the ongoing structural adjustment of latinoamerican economie