Aerobic exercise in obese diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized and controlled pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are generally physically inactive, have a high mortality rate, and may benefit from an exercise program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a 24-week randomized controlled feasibility study comparing aerobic exercise plus optimal medical management to medical management alone in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg/m²), and stage 2-4 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-90 mL/min/1.73 m²with persistent proteinuria). Subjects randomized to exercise underwent thrice weekly aerobic training for 6 followed by 18 weeks of supervised home exercise. The primary outcome variable was change in proteinuria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven subjects randomized to exercise and 4 control subjects completed the study. Exercise training resulted in an increase in exercise duration during treadmill testing, which was accompanied by slight but insignificant decreases in resting systolic blood pressure and 24-hour proteinuria. Exercise did not alter GFR, hemoglobin, glycated hemoglobin, serum lipids, or C-reactive protein (CRP). Caloric intake and body weight and composition also did not change with exercise training.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Exercise training in obese diabetic patients with CKD is feasible and may have clinical benefits. A large-scale randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of exercise on renal functions, cardiovascular fitness, inflammation, and oxidative stress in diabetic patients with CKD is planned.</p

Molecular diagnosis of Burkitt\u27s lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The distinction between Burkitt\u27s lymphoma and diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma is crucial because these two types of lymphoma require different treatments. We examined whether gene-expression profiling could reliably distinguish Burkitt\u27s lymphoma from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. METHODS: Tumor-biopsy specimens from 303 patients with aggressive lymphomas were profiled for gene expression and were also classified according to morphology, immunohistochemistry, and detection of the t(8;14) c-myc translocation. RESULTS: A classifier based on gene expression correctly identified all 25 pathologically verified cases of classic Burkitt\u27s lymphoma. Burkitt\u27s lymphoma was readily distinguished from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma by the high level of expression of c-myc target genes, the expression of a subgroup of germinal-center B-cell genes, and the low level of expression of major-histocompatibility-complex class I genes and nuclear factor-kappaB target genes. Eight specimens with a pathological diagnosis of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma had the typical gene-expression profile of Burkitt\u27s lymphoma, suggesting they represent cases of Burkitt\u27s lymphoma that are difficult to diagnose by current methods. Among 28 of the patients with a molecular diagnosis of Burkitt\u27s lymphoma, the overall survival was superior among those who had received intensive chemotherapy regimens instead of lower-dose regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Gene-expression profiling is an accurate, quantitative method for distinguishing Burkitt\u27s lymphoma from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma

In Support of a Patient-Driven Initiative and Petition to Lower the High Price of Cancer Drugs

Comment in Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--III. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--I. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--IV. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] In Reply--Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] US oncologists call for government regulation to curb drug price rises. [BMJ. 2015

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure

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

GWAS meta-analysis of over 29,000 people with epilepsy identifies 26 risk loci and subtype-specific genetic architecture

Epilepsy is a highly heritable disorder affecting over 50 million people worldwide, of which about one-third are resistant to current treatments. Here we report a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study including 29,944 cases, stratified into three broad categories and seven subtypes of epilepsy, and 52,538 controls. We identify 26 genome-wide significant loci, 19 of which are specific to genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE). We implicate 29 likely causal genes underlying these 26 loci. SNP-based heritability analyses show that common variants explain between 39.6% and 90% of genetic risk for GGE and its subtypes. Subtype analysis revealed markedly different genetic architectures between focal and generalized epilepsies. Gene-set analyses of GGE signals implicate synaptic processes in both excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the brain. Prioritized candidate genes overlap with monogenic epilepsy genes and with targets of current antiseizure medications. Finally, we leverage our results to identify alternate drugs with predicted efficacy if repurposed for epilepsy treatment