Identification and verification of heat shock protein 60 as a potential serum marker for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health issue worldwide, and novel tumor markers may contribute to its efficient management by helping in early detection, prognosis or surveillance of disease. The aim of our study was to identify new serum biomarkers for CRC, and we followed a phased biomarker discovery and validation process to obtain an accurate preliminary assessment of potential clinical utility. We compared colonic tumors and matched normal tissue from 15 CRC patients, using two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE), and identified 17 proteins that had significant differential expression. These results were further confirmed by western blotting for heat shock protein (HSP) 60, glutathione-S-transferase Pi, α-enolase, T-complex protein 1 subunit β, and leukocyte elastase inhibitor, and by immunohistochemistry for HSP60. Using mAbs raised against HSP60, we developed a reliable (precision of 5–15%) and sensitive (0.3 ng·mL−1) immunoassay for the detection of HSP60 in serum. Elevated levels of HSP60 were found in serum from CRC patients in two independent cohorts; the receiver-operating characteristic curve obtained in 112 patients with CRC and 90 healthy controls had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70, which was identical to the AUC of carcinoembryonic antigen. Combination of serum markers improved clinical performance: the AUC of a three-marker logistic regression model combining HSP60, carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 reached 0.77. Serum HSP60 appeared to be more specific for late-stage CRC; therefore, future studies should evaluate its utility for determining prognosis or monitoring therapy rather than early detection

Transcriptional Regulation of Inflammasomes

Inflammasomes are multimolecular complexes with potent inflammatory activity. As such, their activity is tightly regulated at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels. In this review, we present the transcriptional regulation of inflammasome genes from sensors (e.g., NLRP3) to substrates (e.g., IL-1β). Lineage-determining transcription factors shape inflammasome responses in different cell types with profound consequences on the responsiveness to inflammasome-activating stimuli. Pro-inflammatory signals (sterile or microbial) have a key transcriptional impact on inflammasome genes, which is largely mediated by NF-κB and that translates into higher antimicrobial immune responses. Furthermore, diverse intrinsic (e.g., circadian clock, metabolites) or extrinsic (e.g., xenobiotics) signals are integrated by signal-dependent transcription factors and chromatin structure changes to modulate transcriptionally inflammasome responses. Finally, anti-inflammatory signals (e.g., IL-10) counterbalance inflammasome genes induction to limit deleterious inflammation. Transcriptional regulations thus appear as the first line of inflammasome regulation to raise the defense level in front of stress and infections but also to limit excessive or chronic inflammation

Glycosylated Amphiphilic Calixarene‐Based Detergent for Functional Stabilization of Native Membrane Proteins.

International audienc

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons