Proteomic Profiling of Serum Derived Exosomes from Prostate Cancer Patients

Touted among the major achievements in the diagnosis and management of Prostate cancer (PCa) in the past few decades has been, the dramatic decline of men with advanced/metastatic PCa at diagnosis coupled with a significant improvement ( \u3e90%) in the five and ten year survival rates of the disease. Non-palpable PCa (potentially clinically treatable disease) now accounts for 70-80% of all newly diagnosed cases of PCa. Preceding these changes by about a decade was the introduction of Prostatic Specific Antigen (PSA) into clinical practice; first as biomarker for monitoring response to therapy and subsequently as a complementary screening tool. It is not surprising then that a cause-effect relationship has been suggested. Like a double-edged sword, the use of PSA as a screening tool has also been blamed for the rise of unnecessary prostate related invasive procedures including biopsies and surgeries. Some of the documented criticisms of PSA include its lack of specificity (elevated in inflammation) for PCa and the difficulty of establishing a cut-off value that is highly sensitive and specific for the disease. It is estimated that perhaps up to half of the PCa diagnosis are patients whose tumors would have been clinically undetectable had PSA not been included in the screening process. The dissatisfaction with PSA has created opportunities to search for novel biomarkers for screening and monitoring of treatment in PCa. Some of the more novel biomarkers that have been examined as potential replacements for PSA are the RNA product prostate cancer antigen-3 (PCA 3), the enzyme alpha methylacyl-CoA, and the gene fusion product TMPRSS2-ERG. More recently Zhang, Casiano and colleagues described an increased predominance of autoantibodies to Cyclin-B1 in the sera of PCa patients compared to controls with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). All these efforts are in different stages of maturity but yet to have ground breaking clinical impact. We hereby examined the role of exosomes in PCa and a qualitative profile of its proteomic composition. The higher levels of circulating exosomes in sera of PCa patients is directly prostate-derived and could be stress-induced as the non-cancer prostate stroma and the immune system interact with neoplastic cells. This could be reflected in some of the similarities in the proteomic profile of serum-derived exosomes and exosomes derived from direct PCa in vitro cell line cultures. Moreover, PCa has a higher incidence and a greater disease severity in non-Hispanic African Americans and this difference in disease biology can be reflected in the difference in the proteomic profile of exosomes across ethnicities/races. Serum exosomes originate from a diverse population of normal, neoplastic or inflammatory cells. Tumors do shed membrane vesicles directly into serum or extracellular space. These vesicles are referred to as tumor derived exosomes (TEX). Our overall objective was to use a seroproteomics approach focused on profiling serum exosomes in PCa patients. This profile would then be compared with that of non-cancer patients in an effort to identify proteins unique to cancer patients. A comparative study across racial groups will help us begin to identify possible protein markers/players involved in determining disease aggressiveness. The project hopes to one day fill the gap of the lack of biomarker identification in PCa patients and perhaps give us potential therapeutic targets to help lower morbidity in the black and indeed all cohorts of patients. It builds on preliminary data indicating that PCa patient sera have exosomes containing stress survival and cancer related proteins

Circulation first – the time has come to question the sequencing of care in the ABCs of trauma; an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial

Background The traditional sequence of trauma care: Airway, Breathing, Circulation (ABC) has been practiced for many years. It became the standard of care despite the lack of scientific evidence. We hypothesized that patients in hypovolemic shock would have comparable outcomes with initiation of bleeding treatment (transfusion) prior to intubation (CAB), compared to those patients treated with the traditional ABC sequence. Methods This study was sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trials committee. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients that presented to trauma centers with presumptive hypovolemic shock indicated by pre-hospital or emergency department hypotension and need for intubation from January 1, 2014 to July 1, 2016. Data collected included demographics, timing of intubation, vital signs before and after intubation, timing of the blood transfusion initiation related to intubation, and outcomes. Results From 440 patients that met inclusion criteria, 245 (55.7%) received intravenous blood product resuscitation first (CAB), and 195 (44.3%) were intubated before any resuscitation was started (ABC). There was no difference in ISS, mechanism, or comorbidities. Those intubated prior to receiving transfusion had a lower GCS than those with transfusion initiation prior to intubation (ABC: 4, CAB:9, p = 0.005). Although mortality was high in both groups, there was no statistically significant difference (CAB 47% and ABC 50%). In multivariate analysis, initial SBP and initial GCS were the only independent predictors of death. Conclusion The current study highlights that many trauma centers are already initiating circulation first prior to intubation when treating hypovolemic shock (CAB), even in patients with a low GCS. This practice was not associated with an increased mortality. Further prospective investigation is warranted. Trial registration IRB approval number: HM20006627. Retrospective trial not registered

Early diagnostic value of survivin and its alternative splice variants in breast cancer

Abstract Background The inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) protein Survivin and its splice variants are differentially expressed in breast cancer tissues. Our previous work showed Survivin is released from tumor cells via small membrane-bound vesicles called exosomes. We, therefore, hypothesize that analysis of serum exosomal Survivin and its splice variants may provide a novel biomarker for early diagnosis of breast cancer. Methods We collected sera from forty breast cancer patients and ten control patients who were disease free for 5 years after treatment. In addition, twenty-three paired breast cancer tumor tissues from those same 40 patients were analyzed for splice variants. Serum levels of Survivin were analyzed using ELISA and exosomes were isolated from this serum using the commercially available ExoQuick kit, with subsequent Western blots and immunohistochemistry performed. Results Survivin levels were significantly higher in all the breast cancer samples compared to controls (p &lt; 0.05) with exosome amounts significantly higher in cancer patient sera compared to controls (p &lt; 0.01). While Survivin and Survivin-∆Ex3 splice variant expression and localization was identical in serum exosomes, differential expression of Survivin-2B protein existed in the exosomes. Similarly, Survivin and Survivin-∆Ex3 proteins were the predominant forms detected in all of the breast cancer tissues evaluated in this study, whereas a more variable expression of Survivin-2B level was found at different cancer stages. Conclusion In this study we show for the first time that like Survivin, the Survivin splice variants are also exosomally packaged in the breast cancer patients’ sera, mimicking the survivin splice variant pattern that we also report in breast cancer tissues. Differential expression of exosomal-Survivin, particularly Survivin-2B, may serve as a diagnostic and/or prognostic marker, a “liquid biopsy” if you will, in early breast cancer patients. Furthermore, a more thorough understanding of the role of this prominent antiapoptotic pathway could lead to the development of potential therapeutics for breast cancer patients. </jats:sec

An Update on the Surveillance of Livestock Diseases and Antimicrobial Use in Sierra Leone in 2021-An Operational Research Study.

In Sierra Leone, in 2020, a study by the Livestock and Veterinary Services Division (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) on the surveillance system of animal diseases and antimicrobial use found poor reporting. Of the expected weekly districts reports, &lt;1% were received and only three of the 15 districts had submitted reports occasionally between 2016 and 2019. Following this, staff-capacity-building on reporting was undertaken. In 2021, we reassessed the improvement in reporting and used the reports to describe livestock diseases and antimicrobials utilized in their treatment. Between March and October 2021, 88% of expected weekly reports from all 15 districts were received. There were minor deficiencies in completeness and consistency in the terminology used for reporting animal disease and antimicrobials. Available reports showed that 25% of the livestock had an infectious disease, and a quarter of the sick animals had received an antimicrobial drug. Most animals received antimicrobials belonging to World Organization for Animal Health's "veterinary critically important" category (77%) and World Health Organization's "critically" (17%) and "highly important" (60%) categories for human health. These indicate a significant improvement in the animal health surveillance system and highlight the need for enhanced antimicrobial stewardship to prevent misuse of antimicrobials that are significant in animal and human health

Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial comparing (extended) pleurectomy decortication versus no (extended) pleurectomy decortication for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: Mesothelioma remains a lethal cancer. To date, systemic therapy with pemetrexed and a platinum drug remains the only licensed standard of care. As the median survival for patients with mesothelioma is 12.1 months, surgery is an important consideration to improve survival and/or quality of life. Currently, only two surgical trials have been performed which found that neither extensive (extra-pleural pneumonectomy) or limited (partial pleurectomy) surgery improved survival (although there was some evidence of improved quality of life). Therefore, clinicians are now looking to evaluate pleurectomy decortication, the only radical treatment option left. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MARS 2 study is a UK multicentre open parallel group randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery-(extended) pleurectomy decortication-versus no surgery for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma. The study will test the hypothesis that surgery and chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone with respect to overall survival. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, progression-free survival, measures of safety (adverse events) and resource use to 2 years. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval was granted by London - Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee (reference 13/LO/1481) on 7 November 2013. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN-ISRCTN44351742 and ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT02040272

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults