ER-Alpha-cDNA As Part of a Bicistronic Transcript Gives Rise to High Frequency, Long Term, Receptor Expressing Cell Clones

Within the large group of Estrogen Receptor alpha (ERα)-negative breast cancer patients, there is a subgroup carrying the phenotype ERα−, PR−, and Her2−, named accordingly “Triple-Negative” (TN). Using cell lines derived from this TN group, we wished to establish cell clones, in which ERα is ectopically expressed, forming part of a synthetic lethality screening system. Initially, we generated cell transfectants expressing a mono-cistronic ERα transcription unit, adjacent to a separate dominant selectable marker transcription unit. However, the yield of ERα expressing colonies was rather low (5–12.5%), and only about half of these displayed stable ectopic ERα expression over time. Generation and maintenance of such cell clones under minimal exposure to the ERα ligand, did not improve yield or expression stability. Indeed, other groups have also reported grave difficulties in obtaining ectopic expression of ERα in ERα-deficient breast carcinoma cells. We therefore switched to transfecting these cell lines with pERα-IRES, a plasmid vector encoding a bicistronic translation mRNA template: ERα Open Reading Frame (ORF) being upstream followed by a dominant-positive selectable marker (hygroR) ORF, directed for translation from an Internal Ribosome Entry Site (IRES). Through usage of this bicistronic vector linkage system, it was possible to generate a very high yield of ERα expressing cell clones (50–100%). The stability over time of these clones was also somewhat improved, though variations between individual cell clones were evident. Our successful experience with ERα in this system may serve as a paradigm for other genes where ectopic expression meets similar hardships

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed

Ovarian steroid hormones: Effects on immune responses and Chlamydia trachomatis infections of the female genital tract

Female sex hormones are known to regulate the adaptive and innate immune functions of the female reproductive tract. This review aims to update our current knowledge of the effects of the sex hormones estradiol and progesterone in the female reproductive tract on innate immunity, antigen presentation, specific immune responses, antibody secretion, genital tract infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, and vaccine-induced immunity