Characterization of Extracellular Vesicles Secreted by a Clinical Isolate of Naegleria fowleri and Identification of Immunogenic Components within Their Protein Cargo

Abstract: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are small lipid vesicles released by both prokaryotic and eu-karyotic cells, involved in intercellular communication, immunomodulation and pathogenesis. In this study, we performed a characterization of the EVs produced by trophozoites of a clinical isolate of the free-living amoeba Naegleria fowleri (N. fowleri). Size distribution, zeta potential, protein profile and protease activity were analyzed. Under our incubation conditions, EVs of different sizes were observed, with a predominant population ranging from 206 to 227 nm. SDS-PAGE revealed protein bands of 25 to 260 KDa. The presence of antigenic proteins was confirmed by Western blot, which evidenced the strongest recognition by rat polyclonal antibodies raised against N. fowleri in the region close to 80 KDa and included peptidases, as revealed by zymography. Proteins in the selected immunorecognized bands were further identified using nano-ESI-MS/MS. A preliminary proteomic profile of the EVs identified at least 184 proteins as part of the vesicles’ cargo. Protease activity assays, in combination with the use of inhibitors, revealed the predominance of serine proteases. The present characterization uncovers the complexity of EVs produced by N. fowleri, suggesting their potential relevance in the release of virulence factors involved in pathogenicity. Owing to their cargo’s diversity, further research on EVs could reveal new therapeutic targets or biomarkers for developing rapid and accurate diagnostic tools for lethal infections, such as the one caused by this amoeba.Vicerrectoría de Investigación/[803-C1-061]/VI/Costa RicaVicerrectoría de Investigación/[803-C2-600]/VI/Costa RicaUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias de la Salud::Centro de Investigación en Enfermedades Tropicales (CIET)UCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Salud::Facultad de Microbiologí

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

Characterization of Extracellular Vesicles Secreted by a Clinical Isolate of Naegleria fowleri and Identification of Immunogenic Components within Their Protein Cargo

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are small lipid vesicles released by both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, involved in intercellular communication, immunomodulation and pathogenesis. In this study, we performed a characterization of the EVs produced by trophozoites of a clinical isolate of the free-living amoeba Naegleria fowleri (N. fowleri). Size distribution, zeta potential, protein profile and protease activity were analyzed. Under our incubation conditions, EVs of different sizes were observed, with a predominant population ranging from 206 to 227 nm. SDS-PAGE revealed protein bands of 25 to 260 KDa. The presence of antigenic proteins was confirmed by Western blot, which evidenced strongest recognition by rat polyclonal antibodies raised against N. fowleri in the region close to 80 KDa and included peptidases, as revealed by zymography. Proteins in selected immunorecognized bands were further identified using nano-ESI-MS/MS. A preliminary proteomic profile of the EVs identified at least 184 proteins as part of the vesicles&rsquo; cargo. Protease activity assays, in combination with the use of inhibitors, revealed the predominance of serine proteases. The present characterization uncovers the complexity of EVs produced by N. fowleri, suggesting their potential relevance in the release of virulence factors involved in pathogenicity. Owing to their cargo&rsquo;s diversity, further research on EVs could reveal new therapeutic targets or biomarkers for developing rapid and accurate diagnostic tools for lethal infections such as the one caused by this amoeba

Educar en derechos humanos : un espacio para el juego

Proyecto Aula Activa: Juegos Cooperativos para la educación para la paz Guía didáctica Colección: Jugando para la paz Material didáctico gratuito Editora Evelyn Cerdas AgüeroEsta guía didáctica titulada “Educar en derechos humanos un espacio para el juego” forma parte del proyecto Aula activa: juegos educativos para la educación para la paz del Instituto de Estudios Latinoamericanos (IDELA). Este proyecto busca fomentar en el estudiantado un proceso de cambio en la aprehensión y vivencia de los derechos humanos de manera que logren reconstruir actitudes, aprender valores y desarrollar habilidades susceptibles de ejercitarse en su interacción diaria, por medio de conductas y actitudes coherentes con el respeto de los derechos humanos y la construcción de una cultura de paz. En este participan estudiantes del curso Espacios Lúdicos para la Educación en Derechos Humanos del Instituto de Estudios Latinoamericanos. Autores: Chacón Campos Stephanie González Camacho Ana Lucía Loría Cubillo Marco Oconitrillo Arce Yuliana Quesada Sancho Fabiola Adrián Barrantes Aguilar Karina Díaz Monge Edith Jiménez Venegas Valeria Moya Pereira Nicolás Salas Ruíz Ericka Sánchez Morera Raúl Hidalgo Perez Stephen Mekbel Ashley Pereira Mónica Cordero Ramírez Jennifer Matarrita Corrales Pamela Brenes Navarro Elvira Mena Brenes Daniela Murillo Orozco Susan Solano Monge Francisco Suarez Pérez Carlos González Leandro Priscilla López Rojas. Carolina Montero Iyara Vargas Lobo Evelyn Figueroa Elizondo Anne Hübner Jacqueline Valencia González Miriam Lizbeth Velázquez Ávila Valerie Calderón Jennifer Campos Jessica Ochoa Monserrath Navarro Ericka Lewis Carolina Rojas Jazmín Arroyo Calderón Melany Arroyo Calderón Mónica Brenes Luna María Sofía Haug Cordero María José Redondo Ríos Ayleen Cascante Zúñiga Marta Azofeifa Matamoros Melanie Guillén Miranda Scarleth Luca Brenes David Valverde Murillo María Castro Arce Natalia Chacón Muñoz Hazel Campos Hernández María José Garita Barahona Raquel González Hernández Laura Ramos Solórzano Gisselle Porras Víquez Pedro ChaverríThis didactic guide entitled "Educating in human rights, a space for play" is part of the project Active Classroom: educational games for peace education of the Institute of Latin American Studies (IDELA). This project seeks to foster in students a process of change in the understanding and experience of human rights so that they can rebuild attitudes, learn values and develop skills that can be exercised in their daily interaction, through behaviors and attitudes consistent with respect for human rights and the construction of a culture of peace. Students from the course Playful Spaces for Human Rights Education of the Institute of Latin American Studies participate in this one. Authors: Chacón Campos Stephanie González Camacho Ana Lucía Loría Cubillo Marco Oconitrillo Arce Yuliana Quesada Sancho Fabiola Adrian Barrantes Aguilar Karina Díaz Monge Edith Jimenez Venegas Valeria Moya Pereira Nicolás Salas Ruíz Ericka Sánchez Morera Raúl Hidalgo Perez Stephen Mekbel Ashley Pereira Mónica Cordero Ramírez Jennifer Matarrita Corrales Pamela Brenes Navarro Elvira Mena Brenes Daniela Murillo Orozco Susan Solano Monge Francisco Suarez Perez Carlos González Leandro Priscilla Lopez Rojas Carolina Montero Iyara Vargas Lobo Evelyn Figueroa Elizondo Anne Hübner Jacqueline Valencia González Miriam Lizbeth Velázquez Ávila Valerie Calderon Jennifer Campos Jessica Ochoa Monserrath Navarro Ericka Lewis Carolina Rojas Jazmin Arroyo Calderon Melany Arroyo Calderon Mónica Brenes Luna María Sofía Haug Cordero María José Redondo Ríos Ayleen Cascante Zúñiga Marta Azofeifa Matamoros Melanie Guillén Miranda Scarleth Luca Brenes David Valverde Murillo María Castro Arce Natalia Chacón Muñoz Hazel Campos Hernández María José Garita Barahona Raquel González Hernández Laura Ramos Solórzano Gisselle Porras Víquez Pedro ChaverríInstituto de Estudios Latinoamericano

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

BackgroundMultisystem 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.MethodsThe 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.FindingsWe 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&lt;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&lt;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.InterpretationRecovery 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.FundingImperial 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

Colombian surgical outcomes study insights on perioperative mortality rate, a main indicator of the lancet commission on global surgery – a prospective cohort studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: Surgical care holds significant importance in healthcare, especially in low and middle-income countries, as at least 50% of the 4.2 million deaths within the initial 30 days following surgery take place in these countries. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed six indicators to enhance surgical care. In Colombia, studies have been made using secondary data. However, strategies to reduce perioperative mortality have not been implemented. This study aims to describe the fourth indicator, perioperative mortality rate (POMR), with primary data in Colombia. Methods: A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted across 54 centres (hospitals) in Colombia. Each centre selected a 7-day recruitment period between 05/2022 and 01/2023. Inclusion criteria involved patients over 18 years of age undergoing surgical procedures in operating rooms. Data quality was ensured through a verification guideline and statistical analysis using mixed-effects multilevel modelling with a case mix analysis of mortality by procedure-related, patient-related, and hospital-related conditions. Findings: 3807 patients were included with a median age of 48 (IQR 32–64), 80.3% were classified as ASA I or II, and 27% of the procedures had a low-surgical complexity. Leading procedures were Orthopedics (19.2%) and Gynaecology/Obstetrics (17.7%). According to the Clavien–Dindo scale, postoperative complications were distributed in major complications (11.7%, 10.68–12.76) and any complication (31.6%, 30.09–33.07). POMR stood at 1.9% (1.48–2.37), with elective and emergency surgery mortalities at 0.7% (0.40–1.23) and 3% (2.3–3.89) respectively. Interpretation: The POMR was higher than the ratio reported in previous national studies, even when patients had a low–risk profile and low-complexity procedures. The present research represents significant public health progress with valuable insights for national decision-makers to improve the quality of surgical care. Funding: This work was supported by Universidad del Rosario and Fundación Cardioinfantil-Instituto de Cardiología grant number CTO-057-2021, project-ID IV-FGV017

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health