194 research outputs found

    Macrophage Mal1 Deficiency Suppresses Atherosclerosis in Low-Density Lipoprotein Receptor -Null Mice by Activating Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-g-Regulated Genes

    Get PDF
    Cataloged from PDF version of article.Objective-The adipocyte/macrophage fatty acid-binding proteins aP2 (FABP4) and Mal1 (FABP5) are intracellular lipid chaperones that modulate systemic glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and atherosclerosis. Combined deficiency of aP2 and Mal1 has been shown to reduce the development of atherosclerosis, but the independent role of macrophage Mal1 expression in atherogenesis remains unclear. Methods and Results-We transplanted wild-type (WT), Mal1(-/-), or aP2(-/-) bone marrow into low-density lipoprotein receptor-null (LDLR(-/-)) mice and fed them a Western diet for 8 weeks. Mal1(-/-)-> LDLR(-/-) mice had significantly reduced (36%) atherosclerosis in the proximal aorta compared with control WT -> LDLR(-/-) mice. Interestingly, peritoneal macrophages isolated from Mal1-deficient mice displayed increased peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPAR gamma) activity and upregulation of a PPAR gamma-related cholesterol trafficking gene, CD36. Mal1(-/-) macrophages showed suppression of inflammatory genes, such as COX2 and interleukin 6. Mal1(-/-)-> LDLR(-/-) mice had significantly decreased macrophage numbers in the aortic atherosclerotic lesions compared with WT -> LDLR(-/-) mice, suggesting that monocyte recruitment may be impaired. Indeed, blood monocytes isolated from Mal1(-/-)-> LDLR(-/-) mice on a high-fat diet had decreased CC chemokine receptor 2 gene and protein expression levels compared with WT monocytes. Conclusion-Taken together, our results demonstrate that Mal1 plays a proatherogenic role by suppressing PPAR gamma activity, which increases expression of CC chemokine receptor 2 by monocytes, promoting their recruitment to atherosclerotic lesions. (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2011;31:1283-1290.

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles (MISEV2023): From basic to advanced approaches

    Get PDF
    © 2024 The Authors. Journal of Extracellular Vesicles, published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Extracellular vesicles (EVs), through their complex cargo, can reflect the state of their cell of origin and change the functions and phenotypes of other cells. These features indicate strong biomarker and therapeutic potential and have generated broad interest, as evidenced by the steady year-on-year increase in the numbers of scientific publications about EVs. Important advances have been made in EV metrology and in understanding and applying EV biology. However, hurdles remain to realising the potential of EVs in domains ranging from basic biology to clinical applications due to challenges in EV nomenclature, separation from non-vesicular extracellular particles, characterisation and functional studies. To address the challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving field, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) updates its 'Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles', which was first published in 2014 and then in 2018 as MISEV2014 and MISEV2018, respectively. The goal of the current document, MISEV2023, is to provide researchers with an updated snapshot of available approaches and their advantages and limitations for production, separation and characterisation of EVs from multiple sources, including cell culture, body fluids and solid tissues. In addition to presenting the latest state of the art in basic principles of EV research, this document also covers advanced techniques and approaches that are currently expanding the boundaries of the field. MISEV2023 also includes new sections on EV release and uptake and a brief discussion of in vivo approaches to study EVs. Compiling feedback from ISEV expert task forces and more than 1000 researchers, this document conveys the current state of EV research to facilitate robust scientific discoveries and move the field forward even more rapidly.Peer reviewe
    • 

    corecore