Helix pomatia Lectin, an inducer of Drosophila immune response, binds to Hemomucin, a novel surface Mucin

We describe the isolation and initial characterization of hemomucin, a novel Drosophila surface mucin that is likely to be involved in the induction of antibacterial effector molecules after binding a snail lectin (Helix pomatia A hemagglutinin). Two proteins of 100 and 220 kDa were purified from the membrane fraction of a Drosophila blood cell line using lectin columns. The two proteins are products of the same gene, as demonstrated by peptide sequencing. The corresponding cDNAs code for a product that contains an amino-terminal putative transmembrane domain, a domain related to the plant enzyme strictosidine synthase, and a mucin-like domain in the carboxyl-terminal part of the protein. The gene is expressed throughout development. In adult flies, high expression is found in hemocytes, in specialized regions of the gut, and in the ovary, where the protein is deposited onto the egg surface. In the gut, the mucin co-localizes with the peritrophic membrane. The cytogenetic location of the gene is on the third chromosome in the region 97F-98A.Ulrich Theopold, Christos Samakovlis, Hediye Erdjument-Bromage, Natalie Dillon, Bernt Axelsson, Otto Schmidt, Paul Tempst, and Dan Hultmar

Out-of-hours primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction is not associated with excess mortality: a study of 3347 patients treated in an integrated cardiac network

OBJECTIVES: Timely delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Optimum delivery of PPCI requires an integrated network of hospitals, following a multidisciplinary, consultant-led, protocol-driven approach. We investigated whether such a strategy was effective in providing equally effective in-hospital and long-term outcomes for STEMI patients treated by PPCI within normal working hours compared with those treated out-of-hours (OOHs). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Large PPCI centre in London. PARTICIPANTS: 3347 STEMI patients were treated with PPCI between 2004 and 2012. The follow-up median was 3.3 years (IQR: 1.2-4.6 years). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with all-cause mortality a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Of the 3347 STEMI patients, 1299 patients (38.8%) underwent PPCI during a weekday between 08:00 and 18:00 (routine-hours group) and 2048 (61.2%) underwent PPCI on a weekday between 18:00 and 08:00 or a weekend (OOHs group). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups with comparable door-to-balloon times (in-hours (IHs) 67.8 min vs OOHs 69.6 min, p=0.709), call-to-balloon times (IHs 116.63 vs OOHs 127.15 min, p=0.60) and procedural success. In hospital mortality rates were comparable between the two groups (IHs 3.6% vs OOHs 3.2%) with timing of presentation not predictive of outcome (HR 1.25 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.11). Over the follow-up period there were no significant differences in rates of mortality (IHs 7.4% vs OFHs 7.2%, p=0.442) or MACE (IHs 15.4% vs OFHs 14.1%, p=0.192) between the two groups. After adjustment for confounding variables using multivariate analysis, timing of presentation was not an independent predictor of mortality (HR 1.04 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39). CONCLUSIONS: This large registry study demonstrates that the delivery of PPCI with a multidisciplinary, consultant-led, protocol-driven approach provides safe and effective treatment for patients regardless of the time of presentation. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/3/6/e003063.full.pdf This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-00306

Radial versus femoral access is associated with reduced complications and mortality in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: an observational cohort study of 10,095 patients

Background— Compared with transfemoral access, transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with reduced risk of bleeding and vascular complications. Studies suggest that TRA may reduce mortality in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. However, there are few data on the effect of TRA on mortality, specifically, in patients with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and Results— We analyzed 10 095 consecutive patients with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention between 2005 and 2011 in all 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London, United Kingdom. TRA was a predictor for reduced bleeding (odds ratio=0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08–0.57; P =0.002), access-site complications (odds ratio=0.47; 95% CI: 0.23–0.95; P =0.034), and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72; 95% CI: 0.54–0.94; P =0.017). Between 2005 and 2007, TRA did not appear to reduce mortality at 1 year (HR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.51–1.28; P =0.376), whereas between 2008 and 2011, TRA conferred survival benefit at 1 year (HR=0.65; 95% CI: 0.46–0.92; P =0.015). The mortality benefit with TRA at 1 year was not seen at the low-volume centers (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.47–1.38; P =0.428) but specifically seen in the high volume radial centers (HR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.51–0.97; P =0.031). In propensity-matched analyses, TRA remained a predictor for survival at 1 year (HR=0.60; 95% CI: 0.42–0.85; P =0.005). Instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that TRA conferred mortality benefit at 1-year with an absolute mortality reduction of 5.8% ( P =0.039). Conclusions— In this analysis of patients with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, TRA appears to be a predictor for survival. Furthermore, the evolving learning curve, experience, and expertise may be important factors contributing to the prognostic benefit conferred with TRA. </jats:sec