Reversal of morphine tolerance by a compound with NPFF receptor subtype-selective actions

AbstractNeuropeptide FF (NPFF) modulates opiate actions. It has pro-nociceptive effects, primarily through the NPFF receptor 1 subtype, and anti-nociceptive effects, primarily through the NPFFR2 subtype. AC-263093 is a small l, organic, systemically active molecule that was previously shown to functionally activate NPFFR2, but not NPFFR1. It was hypothesized that AC-263093 would attenuate morphine tolerance. Rats were tested for radiant heat tail-flick latency before and after 5mg/kg morphine sulfate s.c. They were then rendered morphine-tolerant by continuous subcutaneous infusion of 17.52mg/kg/day morphine sulfate. On the seventh day of infusion, they were retested for analgesia 10 and 20min after 5mg/kg morphine sulfate s.c. Tolerance was indicated by reduction of morphine analgesia from the pre-infusion test. Fifty minutes prior to morphine challenge, rats received either 10mg/kg i.p. AC-263093 or injection vehicle alone. AC-2623093-treated rats had far smaller tolerance scores than control rats. This drug effect was significant, p=0.015. The same dose of AC-263093 had almost no analgesic effect in non-tolerant, saline-infused rats. In vitro experiments revealed that AC-263093 had equal affinity for NPFFR1 and NPFFR2, and functionally inactivated NPFFR1, in addition to its previously shown ability to activate NPFFR2. Thus, altering the balance between activation of NPFF receptor subtypes may provide one approach to reversing opiate tolerance

Diagnostic Characteristics of Lactate Dehydrogenase on a Multiplex Assay for Malaria Detection Including the Zoonotic Parasite Plasmodium knowlesi.

Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) is a common target in malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). These commercial antibody capture assays target either Plasmodium falciparum-specific pLDH (PfLDH), P. vivax-specific pLDH (PvLDH), or a conserved epitope in all human malaria pLDH (PanLDH). However, there are no assays specifically targeting P. ovale, P. malariae or zoonotic parasites such as P. knowlesi and P. cynomolgi. A malaria multiplex array, carrying the specific antibody spots for PfLDH, PvLDH, and PanLDH has been previously developed. This study aimed to assess potential cross-reactivity between pLDH from various Plasmodium species and this array. We tested recombinant pLDH proteins, clinical samples for P. vivax, P. falciparum, P. ovale curtisi, and P. malariae; and in vitro cultured P. knowlesi and P. cynomolgi. P. ovale-specific pLDH (PoLDH) and P. malariae-specific pLDH (PmLDH) cross-reacted with the PfLDH and PanLDH spots. Plasmodium Knowlesi-specific pLDH (PkLDH) and P. cynomolgi-specific pLDH (PcLDH) cross-reacted with the PvLDH spot, but only PkLDH was recognized by the PanLDH spot. Plasmodium ovale and P. malariae can be differentiated from P. falciparum by the concentration ratios of PanLDH/PfLDH, which had mean (range) values of 4.56 (4.07-5.16) and 4.56 (3.43-6.54), respectively, whereas P. falciparum had a lower ratio of 1.12 (0.56-2.61). Plasmodium knowlesi had a similar PanLDH/PvLDH ratio value, with P. vivax having a mean value of 2.24 (1.37-2.79). The cross-reactivity pattern of pLDH can be a useful predictor to differentiate certain Plasmodium species. Cross-reactivity of the pLDH bands in RDTs requires further investigation

Generation of LexA enhancer-trap lines in Drosophila by an international scholastic network

Conditional gene regulation in Drosophila through binary expression systems like the LexA-LexAop system provides a superb tool for investigating gene and tissue function. To increase the availability of defined LexA enhancer trap insertions, we present molecular, genetic, and tissue expression studies of 301 novel Stan-X LexA enhancer traps derived from mobilization of the index SX4 line. This includes insertions into distinct loci on the X, II, and III chromosomes that were not previously associated with enhancer traps or targeted LexA constructs, an insertion into ptc, and seventeen insertions into natural transposons. A subset of enhancer traps was expressed in CNS neurons known to produce and secrete insulin, an essential regulator of growth, development, and metabolism. Fly lines described here were generated and characterized through studies by students and teachers in an international network of genetics classes at public, independent high schools, and universities serving a diversity of students, including those underrepresented in science. Thus, a unique partnership between secondary schools and university-based programs has produced and characterized novel resources in Drosophila, establishing instructional paradigms devoted to unscripted experimental science

Generation of LexA enhancer-trap lines in Drosophila by an international scholastic network

Conditional gene regulation in Drosophila through binary expression systems like the LexA-LexAop system provides a superb tool for investigating gene and tissue function. To increase the availability of defined LexA enhancer trap insertions, we present molecular, genetic, and tissue expression studies of 301 novel Stan-X LexA enhancer traps derived from mobilization of the index SX4 line. This includes insertions into distinct loci on the X, II, and III chromosomes that were not previously associated with enhancer traps or targeted LexA constructs, an insertion into ptc, and seventeen insertions into natural transposons. A subset of enhancer traps was expressed in CNS neurons known to produce and secrete insulin, an essential regulator of growth, development, and metabolism. Fly lines described here were generated and characterized through studies by students and teachers in an international network of genetics classes at public, independent high schools, and universities serving a diversity of students, including those underrepresented in science. Thus, a unique partnership between secondary schools and university-based programs has produced and characterized novel resources in Drosophila, establishing instructional paradigms devoted to unscripted experimental science

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

On the Intersection of Somatechnics and Transgender Studies

The relationship between transgender studies and somatechnics has been generative. In this reflection on the intersection between somatechnics and transgender studies, the editorial collective of the Somatechnics journal provides a brief outline of what has been accomplished in the latter through an engagement with the former. This reflection is not intended to be an exhaustive review of trans*-somatechnics relations. Instead, here we highlight topics and modes of study that are indicative of critical interest in trans* matters at this time and how these matters intersect with our related areas of research. We outline how the somatechnical understanding of transgender as relational and constitutively realized through particular kinds of sociopolitical contexts explains the critical purchase of somatechnical investigations to trans* matters. We also cover somatechnics and transgender studies' engagements with technologies of mobility, race, and coloniality as well as media. We suggest that work in the journal on somatechnics and transgender studies constitutes a trans-substantial dialogue that trans*-identified scholars make specific via their contributions to social sciences and the humanities