Quantifying Drug-Induced Bone Marrow Toxicity Using a Novel Haematopoiesis Systems Pharmacology Model.

Haematological toxicity associated with cancer therapeutics is monitored by changes in blood cell count, and their primary effect is on proliferative progenitors in the bone marrow. Using observations in rat bone marrow and blood, we characterize a mathematical model that comprises cell proliferation and differentiation of the full haematopoietic phylogeny, with interacting feedback loops between lineages in homeostasis as well as following carboplatin exposure. We accurately predicted the temporal dynamics of several mature cell types related to carboplatin-induced bone marrow toxicity and identified novel insights into haematopoiesis. Our model confirms a significant degree of plasticity within bone marrow cells, with the number and type of both early progenitors and circulating cells affecting cell balance, via feedback mechanisms, through fate decisions of the multipotent progenitors. We also demonstrated cross-species translation of our predictions to patients, applying the same core model structure and considering differences in drug-dependent and physiology-dependent parameters

Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation After Paediatric Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Risk Factors and Sensitivity Analysis of Mathematical Model

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) establishes a lifelong latent infection in healthy humans, kept under immune control by cytotoxic T cells (CTLs). Following paediatric haematopoetic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), a loss of immune surveillance leads to opportunistic outgrowth of EBV-infected cells, resulting in EBV reactivation, which can ultimately progress to post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). The aims of this study were to identify risk factors for EBV reactivation in children in the first 100 days post-HSCT and to assess the suitability of a previously reported mathematical model to mechanistically model EBV reactivation kinetics in this cohort. Retrospective electronic data were collected from 56 children who underwent HSCT at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) between 2005 and 2016. Using EBV viral load (VL) measurements from weekly quantitative PCR (qPCR) monitoring post-HSCT, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards (Cox-PH) model was developed to assess time to first EBV reactivation event in the first 100 days post-HSCT. Sensitivity analysis of a previously reported mathematical model was performed to identify key parameters affecting EBV VL. Cox-PH modelling revealed EBV seropositivity of the HSCT recipient and administration of anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) pre-HSCT to be significantly associated with an increased risk of EBV reactivation in the first 100 days post-HSCT (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 2.32, P = 0.02; AHR = 2.55, P = 0.04). Five parameters were found to affect EBV VL in sensitivity analysis of the previously reported mathematical model. In conclusion, we have assessed the effect of multiple covariates on EBV reactivation in the first 100 days post-HSCT in children and have identified key parameters in a previously reported mechanistic mathematical model that affect EBV VL. Future work will aim to fit this model to patient EBV VLs, develop the model to account for interindividual variability and model the effect of clinically relevant covariates such as rituximab therapy and ATG on EBV VL

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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