Combined TRPC3 and TRPC6 blockade by selective small-molecule or genetic deletion inhibits pathological cardiac hypertrophy

Chronic neurohormonal and mechanical stresses are central fea-tures of heart disease. Increasing evidence supports a role forthe transient receptor potential canonical channels TRPC3 andTRPC6 in this pathophysiology. Channel expression for both is nor-mally very low but is increased by cardiac disease, and geneticgain- or loss-of-function studies support contributions to hypertro-phy and dysfunction. Selective small-molecule inhibitors remainscarce, and none target both channels, which may be useful giventhe high homology among them and evidence of redundant sig-naling. Here we tested selective TRPC3/6 antagonists (GSK2332255Band GSK2833503A; IC50,3–21 nM against TRPC3 and TRPC6) andfound dose-dependent blockade of cell hypertrophy signaling trig-gered by angiotensin II or endothelin-1 in HEK293T cells as well as inneonatal and adult cardiac myocytes. In vivo efficacy in mice andrats was greatly limited by rapid metabolism and high protein bind-ing, although antifibrotic effects with pressure overload were ob-served. Intriguingly, although gene deletion of TRPC3 or TRPC6alone did not protect against hypertrophy or dysfunction frompressure overload, combined deletion was protective, support-ing the value of dual inhibition. Further development of thispharmaceutical class may yield a useful therapeutic agent forheart disease management.Fil: Seo, Kinya. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Rainer, Peter P.. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados Unidos. Medical University of Graz. Department of Medicine; AustriaFil: Shalkey Hahn, Virginia. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Lee, Dong-ik. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Jo, Su-Hyun. Kangwon National University School of Medicine; Corea del Sur. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Andersen, Asger. Aarhus University Hospital. Department of Cardiology; DinamarcaFil: Liu, Ting. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Xu, Xiaoping. GlaxoSmithKline Heart Failure Discovery Performance Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Willette, Robert N.. GlaxoSmithKline Heart Failure Discovery Performance Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Lepore, John J.. GlaxoSmithKline Heart Failure Discovery Performance Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Marino, Joseph P.. GlaxoSmithKline Heart Failure Discovery Performance Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Birnbaumer, Lutz. ational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas; ArgentinaFil: Schnackenberg, Christine G.. GlaxoSmithKline Heart Failure Discovery Performance Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Kass, David A.. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Department of Medicine; Estados Unido

Characterization of Naturally Acquired Immunity to a Panel of Antigens Expressed in Mature P. falciparum Gametocytes.

INTRODUCTION: Naturally acquired immune responses against antigens expressed on the surface of mature gametocytes develop in individuals living in malaria-endemic areas. Evidence suggests that such anti-gametocyte immunity can block the development of the parasite in the mosquito, thus playing a role in interrupting transmission. A better comprehension of naturally acquired immunity to these gametocyte antigens can aid the development of transmission-blocking vaccines and improve our understanding of the human infectious reservoir. METHODS: Antigens expressed on the surface of mature gametocytes that had not previously been widely studied for evidence of naturally acquired immunity were identified for protein expression alongside Pfs230-C using either the mammalian HEK293E or the wheat germ cell-free expression systems. Where there was sequence variation in the candidate antigens (3D7 vs a clinical isolate PfKE04), both variants were expressed. ELISA was used to assess antibody responses against these antigens, as well as against crude stage V gametocyte extract (GE) and AMA1 using archived plasma samples from individuals recruited to participate in malaria cohort studies. We analyzed antibody levels (estimated from optical density units using a standardized ELISA) and seroprevalence (defined as antibody levels greater than three standard deviations above the mean levels of a pool of malaria naïve sera). We described the dynamics of antibody responses to these antigens by identifying factors predictive of antibody levels using linear regression models. RESULTS: Of the 25 antigens selected, seven antigens were produced successfully as recombinant proteins, with one variant antigen, giving a total of eight proteins for evaluation. Antibodies to the candidate antigens were detectable in the study population (N = 216), with seroprevalence ranging from 37.0% (95% CI: 30.6%, 43.9%) for PSOP1 to 77.8% (95% CI: 71.6%, 83.1%) for G377 (3D7 variant). Responses to AMA1 and GE were more prevalent than those to the gametocyte proteins at 87.9% (95% CI: 82.8%, 91.9%) and 88.3% (95% CI: 83.1%, 92.4%), respectively. Additionally, both antibody levels and breadth of antibody responses were associated with age and concurrent parasitaemia. CONCLUSION: Age and concurrent parasitaemia remain important determinants of naturally acquired immunity to gametocyte antigens. Furthermore, we identify novel candidates for transmission-blocking activity evaluation

Additional file 1 of Food price perception, food and beverage marketing and the nutritional status of children 6–24 months in Obunga slums, Kisumu Kenya: a cross-sectional study

Additional file 1

Replication data for: Characterization of naturally acquired immunity to a panel of antigens expressed in mature P. falciparum gametocytes

We used data from a longitudinally monitored cohort of children and adults from Kilifi county located along the Kenyan coast collected between 1998-2016 to describe the factors associated with the acquisition of antibody responses to antigens expressed on the surface of mature gametocytes. A panel of candidate gametocyte antigens were identified and produced as recombinant protein for this analysis. The datasets comprise data from cross-sectional surveys carried out to assess parasite prevalence. The datasets were used to carry out analyses aimed at describing the seroprevalence of antibodies to the candidate antigens, and assess the factors associated with antibody responses to these antigens. The overall aim of the analyses was to improve our understanding of immunity to the transmissible stages of the malaria parasite

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

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 (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field