Apoptosis and necroptosis induced by stenodactylin in neuroblastoma cells can be completely prevented through caspase inhibition plus catalase or necrostatin-1

Abstract Background Stenodactylin is a highly toxic plant lectin purified from the caudex of Adenia stenodactyla , with molecular structure, intracellular routing and enzyme activity similar to those of ricin, a well-known type 2 ribosome-inactivating protein. However, in contrast with ricin, stenodactylin is retrogradely transported not only in peripheral nerves but also in the central nervous system. Purpose Stenodactylin properties make it a potential candidate for application in neurobiology and in experimental therapies against cancer. Thus, it is necessary to better clarify the toxic activity of this compound. Study design We investigated the mechanism of stenodactylin-induced cell death in the neuroblastoma-derived cell line, NB100, evaluating the implications of different death pathways and the involvement of oxidative stress. Methods Stenodactylin cytotoxicity was determined by evaluating protein synthesis and other viability parameters. Cell death pathways and oxidative stress were analysed through flow cytometry and microscopy. Inhibitors of apoptosis, oxidative stress and necroptosis were tested to evaluate their protective effect against stenodactylin cytotoxicity. Results Stenodactylin efficiently blocked protein synthesis and reduced the viability of neuroblastoma cells at an extremely low concentration and over a short time (1 pM, 24 h). Stenodactylin induced the strong and rapid activation of apoptosis and the production of free radicals. Here, for the first time, a complete and long lasting protection from the lethal effect induced by a toxic type 2 ribosome-inactivating protein has been obtained by combining the caspase inhibitor Z-VAD-fmk, to either the hydrogen peroxide scavenger catalase or the necroptotic inhibitor necrostatin-1. Conclusion In respect to stenodactylin cytotoxicity, our results: (i) confirm the high toxicity to nervous cells, (ii) indicate that multiple cell death pathways can be induced, (iii) show that apoptosis is the main death pathway, (iv) demonstrate the involvement of necroptosis and (v) oxidative stress

Advancing the Provision of Pain Education and Learning (APPEAL) study

Objectives Unrelieved pain is a substantial public health concern necessitating improvements in medical education. The Advancing the Provision of Pain Education and Learning (APPEAL) study aimed to determine current levels and methods of undergraduate pain medicine education in Europe. Design and methods Using a cross-sectional design, publicly available curriculum information was sought from all medical schools in 15 representative European countries in 2012–2013. Descriptive analyses were performed on: the provision of pain teaching in dedicated pain modules, other modules or within the broader curriculum; whether pain teaching was compulsory or elective; the number of hours/credits spent teaching pain; pain topics; and teaching and assessment methods. Results Curriculum elements were publicly available from 242 of 249 identified schools (97%). In 55% (133/242) of schools, pain was taught only within compulsory non-pain-specific modules. The next most common approaches were for pain teaching to be provided wholly or in part via a dedicated pain module (74/242; 31%) or via a vertical or integrated approach to teaching through the broader curriculum, rather than within any specific module (17/242; 7%). The curricula of 17/242 schools (7%) showed no evidence of any pain teaching. Dedicated pain modules were most common in France (27/31 schools; 87%). Excluding France, only 22% (47/211 schools) provided a dedicated pain module and in only 9% (18/211) was this compulsory. Overall, the median number of hours spent teaching pain was 12.0 (range 4–56.0 h; IQR: 12.0) for compulsory dedicated pain modules and 9.0 (range 1.0–60.0 h; IQR: 10.5) for other compulsory (non-pain specific) modules. Pain medicine was principally taught in classrooms and assessed by conventional examinations. There was substantial international variation throughout. Conclusions Documented pain teaching in many European medical schools falls far short of what might be expected given the prevalence and public health burden of pain

First line avelumab in PD-L1+ve metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) patients unfit for cisplatin (cis): The ARIES trial

Background: Avelumab (ave) was approved as maintenance therapy after platinum-based first line (1L) therapy for patients (pts) with aUC based on ph. 3 Javelin Bladder 100 study (NCT02603432), showing significant overall survival (OS) improvement. Here we tested the activity of ave as 1L of therapy in cis-unfit pts with aUC and PD-L1+ve expression. Methods: ARIES is a single-arm, multi-site, open-label phase II trial. Enrolled pts had aUC, were cis-unfit (at least one of: ECOG-PS = 2, CrCl < 60 mL/min, grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy/hearing loss, progression within 6-mos before the end of neo/adj chemo), had not previously received chemo for aUC and PD-L1≥5% (SP263) centrally assessed. Pts received ave 10 mg/Kg IV Q2W until progression, unacceptable toxicity and withdrawal, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was the 1-year OS. Key secondary endpoints were median-OS, -PFS, ORR and safety. Results: A total of 198 eligible cis-unfit pts have been tested for PD-L1 and 71 (35.6%) have been found positive. Among enrolled patients (N = 71), median age was 75 y, 35 (49.3%) had visceral disease, and 22 (31.0%) had ECOG-PS = 2; 50 (70.4%) had CrCl < 60 mL/min and 9 (12.7%) progressed within 6-mos from the end of neo/adj chemo. At the cut-off data (Oct 7, 2021), median follow up was 9.0 mo and 13 patients are still on treatment. The median OS was 10.0 mos (95% CI, 5.7-14.3), and 40.8% of patients were alive at 1-year. The ORR for all patients was 22.5%; complete response, 1.4% (n = 1); partial response, 21.1% (n = 15). Clinical benefit was 43.6% (n = 31). Median PFS was 2.0 mos (95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Among the 56 pts who received at least 3 cycles (29 days) of therapy the median OS was 16.0 vs 1.0 mos. Five (7.0%) grade 3 ave-related adverse events, and no treatment-related death were reported. Conclusions: Ave is active and safe in pts with cis-unfit, PD-L1+ve aUC and poor baseline characteristics

Bollettino Sismico Italiano: Analisys of Early Aftershocks of the 2016 MW 6.0 Amatrice, MW 5.9 Visso and MW 6.5 Norcia earthquakes in Central Italy

The Amatrice-Visso-Norcia seismic sequence is the most important of the last 30 years in Italy. The seismic sequence started on 24 August, 2016 and still is ongoing in central Apennines. At the end of February 2017 more than 57,000 events were located, 80,000 events up to the end of September 2017 (Fig. 1). The mainshocks of the sequence occurred on 24 August 2016 (Mw 6.0 and Mw 5.4), 26 October 2016 (Mw 5.4 and Mw 5.9), 30 October 2016 (Mw 6.5), 18 January 2017 (four earthquakes Mw≥ 5.0). In this seismic sequence, all the waveforms recorded by temporary stations deployed by the SISMIKO emergency group (stations T12**; Moretti et al., 2016) where available in real- time at the surveillance room of INGV. Because of the high level of seismicity and the dense seismic network installed in the region, more than 150 events per day were located at the end of February 2017; still 60 events per day were located up to the end of August 2017.The Amatrice-Visso-Norcia is the most important seismic sequence since 2015, the time when the analysis procedures of the BSI group (Bollettino Sismico Italiano) were revised (Nardi et al., 2015). BSI is now available every four months on the web: bulletins contain revised earthquakes (location and magnitude) with ML≥ 1.5, quasi-real time revision of ML≥ 3.5 earthquakes and phase arrivals from waveforms recorded on seismic stations available from the European Integrated Data Archive (EIDA), (Mazza et al., 2012). These last procedures allow the integration of signals from temporary seismic stations (Moretti et al., 2014) installed by the emergency group SISMIKO (Moretti and Sismiko working group, 2016), even when they are not in real time transmission, if they are rapidly archived in EIDA, together with real time signals from the seismic stations of the permanent INGV network. The analysis strategy of the BSI group for the Amatrice -Visso - Norcia seismic sequence (AVN.s.s in the following) was to select the earthquakes located in the box with min/max latitude: 42.2/43.2 - and min/max longitude: 12.4/14.1 to prepare a special volume of BSI on the seismic sequence.PublishedTrieste, Italy1SR. TERREMOTI - Servizi e ricerca per la Societ

Bollettino Sismico Italiano: maggio - agosto 2016

Il 24 agosto 2016 un terremoto di magnitudo 6.0 ha dato inizio ad una sequenza sismica in Italia centrale, che ha generato decine di migliaia di eventi sismici. Per l’analisi e revisione di questa sequenza si rimanda ad un uscita speciale del BSI prevista per fine 2017(S_BSI_CI). In questo quadrimestre e nel successivo gli eventi nella zona della sequenza sono quelli localizzati nella sala di sorveglianza. Solo gli eventi con M>= 3.5, e pochi altri (vedi Marchetti et al. Annals of Geophys. DOI: 10.4401/ag6116) sono stati rivisti dal BSI.Nel secondo quadrimestre 2016 si sono verificati sedici eventi di magnitudo superiore a 4.0 (ML) rivisti dagli analisti del BSI uno vicino alle coste tunisine quindi fuori dal territorio nazionale; l’evento di Mw 4.1 che è avvenuto il 30 maggio in provincia di Terni vicino al Lago di Bolsena (lat=42.7, lon=11.98 ad una profondità di 8 km) e 14 eventi nella zona della sequenza nell’ultima settimana del quadrimestre: il 24 agosto 2016 si è verificato l’evento di magnitudo ML=6.0 (Mw=6.0) che ha iniziato una sequenza sismica per la quale sono stati localizzati decine di migliaia di terremoti e che alla fine di ottobre 2016 ha generato eventi persino più forti (fino a Mw=6.5) della prima scossa.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia - Dipartimento di Protezione CivilePublished4IT. Banche dat

Bollettino Sismico Italiano gennaio – aprile 2019

Nel periodo che va dal 1 gennaio al 30 aprile 2019, gli analisti del BSI hanno revisionato tutti gli eventi di magnitudo M≥1.5, mentre i parametri dei terremoti di magnitudo inferiore a tale soglia di revisione sono stati calcolati in tempo reale, nella sala di sorveglianza sismica di Roma.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia - Dipartimento di Protezione CivilePublished4IT. Banche dat

Bollettino Sismico Italiano settembre – dicembre 2018

Gli analisti del BSI hanno revisionato tutti gli eventi di magnitudo M≥1.5, localizzati dal 1 settembre al 31 dicembre 2018. I parametri dei terremoti di magnitudo inferiore a tale soglia di revisione, sono quelli calcolati in tempo reale, nella sala di sorveglianza sismica di Roma.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia - Dipartimento di Protezione CivilePublished4IT. Banche dat

Bollettino Sismico Italiano gennaio – aprile 2018

Nel primo quadrimestre 2018 si sono verificati in Italia cinque eventi di magnitudo superiore o uguale a 4.0, di cui nessuno di magnitudo superiore a 5.0. Due di essi, avvenuti il 4 (MW 4.0) e il 10 aprile (MW 4.6), hanno interessato la zona della sequenza dell’Italia centrale, in provincia di Macerata. Un terremoto di magnitudo MW 4.3 è avvenuto in provincia di Campobasso, il 25 aprile, ad una profondità di 29 km. Infine due terremoti profondi, avvenuti il 12 febbraio (ML 4.4, con profondità di 379 km) e il 7 marzo (ML 4.0, con profondità di 294 km), hanno interessato il Tirreno Meridionale, al largo della costa calabra.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia - Dipartimento di Protezione CivilePublished4IT. Banche dat