Developmentally dynamic changes in DNA methylation in the human pancreas

This is the final version. Available on open access from BMC via the DOI in this recordAvailability of data and materials: Raw and normalized Illumina EPIC methylation data has been submitted to the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) under accession number GSE244636.Development of the human pancreas requires the precise temporal control of gene expression via epigenetic mechanisms and the binding of key transcription factors. We quantified genome-wide patterns of DNA methylation in human fetal pancreatic samples from donors aged 6 to 21 post-conception weeks. We found dramatic changes in DNA methylation across pancreas development, with > 21% of sites characterized as developmental differentially methylated positions (dDMPs) including many annotated to genes associated with monogenic diabetes. An analysis of DNA methylation in postnatal pancreas tissue showed that the dramatic temporal changes in DNA methylation occurring in the developing pancreas are largely limited to the prenatal period. Significant differences in DNA methylation were observed between males and females at a number of autosomal sites, with a small proportion of sites showing sex-specific DNA methylation trajectories across pancreas development. Pancreas dDMPs were not distributed equally across the genome and were depleted in regulatory domains characterized by open chromatin and the binding of known pancreatic development transcription factors. Finally, we compared our pancreas dDMPs to previous findings from the human brain, identifying evidence for tissue-specific developmental changes in DNA methylation. This study represents the first systematic exploration of DNA methylation patterns during human fetal pancreas development and confirms the prenatal period as a time of major epigenomic plasticity.UKRINational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR

Cervical squamous carcinoma cells are resistant to the combined action of tumor necrosis factor-α and histamine whereas normal keratinocytes undergo cytolysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous reports showed that mast cells can typically be found in the peritumoral stroma of cervix carcinomas as well as in many other cancers. Both histamine and TNF-α are potent preformed mast cell mediators and they can act simultaneously after release from mast cells. Thus, the effect of TNF-α and histamine on cervical carcinoma cell lines was studied.</p> <p>Methods and results</p> <p>TNF-α alone induced slight growth inhibition and cell cycle arrest at G0/G1 phase in SiHa cells, but increased their migration. Histamine alone had no effect on cells. In addition, TNF-α and histamine in combination showed no additional effect over that by TNF-α alone, although SiHa cells were even pretreated with a protein synthesis inhibitor. Furthermore, TNF-α-sensitive ME-180 carcinoma cells were also resistant to the combination effect of TNF-α and histamine. In comparison, TNF-α or histamine alone induced growth inhibition in a non-cytolytic manner in normal keratinocytes, an effect that was further enhanced to cell cytolysis when both mediators acted in combination. Keratinocytes displayed strong TNF receptor (TNFR) I and II immunoreactivity, whereas SiHa and ME-180 cells did not. Furthermore, cervix carcinoma specimens revealed TNF-α immunoreactivity in peritumoral cells and carcinoma cells. However, the immunoreactivity of both TNFRs was less intense in carcinoma cells than that in epithelial cells in cervical specimens with non-specific inflammatory changes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>SiHa and ME-180 cells are resistant to the cytolytic effect of TNF-α and histamine whereas normal keratinocytes undergo cytolysis, possibly due to the smaller amount of TNFRs in SiHa and ME-180 cells. In the cervix carcinoma, the malignant cells may resist this endogenous cytolytic action and TNF-α could even enhance carcinoma cell migration.</p

Changing Patterns of Malaria Epidemiology between 2002 and 2010 in Western Kenya: The Fall and Rise of Malaria

The impact of insecticide treated nets (ITNs) on reducing malaria incidence is shown mainly through data collection from health facilities. Routine evaluation of long-term epidemiological and entomological dynamics is currently unavailable. In Kenya, new policies supporting the provision of free ITNs were implemented nationwide in June 2006. To evaluate the impacts of ITNs on malaria transmission, we conducted monthly surveys in three sentinel sites with different transmission intensities in western Kenya from 2002 to 2010.Longitudinal samplings of malaria parasite prevalence in asymptomatic school children and vector abundance in randomly selected houses were undertaken monthly from February 2002. ITN ownership and usage surveys were conducted annually from 2004 to 2010. Asymptomatic malaria parasite prevalence and vector abundances gradually decreased in all three sites from 2002 to 2006, and parasite prevalence reached its lowest level from late 2006 to early 2007. The abundance of the major malaria vectors, Anopheles funestus and An. gambiae, increased about 5-10 folds in all study sites after 2007. However, the resurgence of vectors was highly variable between sites and species. By 2010, asymptomatic parasite prevalence in Kombewa had resurged to levels recorded in 2004/2005, but the resurgence was smaller in magnitude in the other sites. Household ITN ownership was at 50-70% in 2009, but the functional and effective bed net coverage in the population was estimated at 40.3%, 49.4% and 28.2% in 2010 in Iguhu, Kombewa, and Marani, respectively.The resurgence in parasite prevalence and malaria vectors has been observed in two out of three sentinel sites in western Kenya despite a high ownership of ITNs. The likely factors contributing to malaria resurgence include reduced efficacy of ITNs, insecticide resistance in mosquitoes and lack of proper use of ITNs. These factors should be targeted to avoid further resurgence of malaria transmission

Toward a Comprehensive Approach to the Collection and Analysis of Pica Substances, with Emphasis on Geophagic Materials

Pica, the craving and subsequent consumption of non-food substances such as earth, charcoal, and raw starch, has been an enigma for more than 2000 years. Currently, there are little available data for testing major hypotheses about pica because of methodological limitations and lack of attention to the problem.In this paper we critically review procedures and guidelines for interviews and sample collection that are appropriate for a wide variety of pica substances. In addition, we outline methodologies for the physical, mineralogical, and chemical characterization of these substances, with particular focus on geophagic soils and clays. Many of these methods are standard procedures in anthropological, soil, or nutritional sciences, but have rarely or never been applied to the study of pica.Physical properties of geophagic materials including color, particle size distribution, consistency and dispersion/flocculation (coagulation) should be assessed by appropriate methods. Quantitative mineralogical analyses by X-ray diffraction should be made on bulk material as well as on separated clay fractions, and the various clay minerals should be characterized by a variety of supplementary tests. Concentrations of minerals should be determined using X-ray fluorescence for non-food substances and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy for food-like substances. pH, salt content, cation exchange capacity, organic carbon content and labile forms of iron oxide should also be determined. Finally, analyses relating to biological interactions are recommended, including determination of the bioavailability of nutrients and other bioactive components from pica substances, as well as their detoxification capacities and parasitological profiles.This is the first review of appropriate methodologies for the study of human pica. The comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach to the collection and analysis of pica substances detailed here is a necessary preliminary step to understanding the nutritional enigma of non-food consumption

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials (COV001 and COV002)

Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome

Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for death and disability, but its overall association with health remains complex given the possible protective effects of moderate alcohol consumption on some conditions. With our comprehensive approach to health accounting within the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016, we generated improved estimates of alcohol use and alcohol-attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 195 locations from 1990 to 2016, for both sexes and for 5-year age groups between the ages of 15 years and 95 years and older. METHODS: Using 694 data sources of individual and population-level alcohol consumption, along with 592 prospective and retrospective studies on the risk of alcohol use, we produced estimates of the prevalence of current drinking, abstention, the distribution of alcohol consumption among current drinkers in standard drinks daily (defined as 10 g of pure ethyl alcohol), and alcohol-attributable deaths and DALYs. We made several methodological improvements compared with previous estimates: first, we adjusted alcohol sales estimates to take into account tourist and unrecorded consumption; second, we did a new meta-analysis of relative risks for 23 health outcomes associated with alcohol use; and third, we developed a new method to quantify the level of alcohol consumption that minimises the overall risk to individual health. FINDINGS: Globally, alcohol use was the seventh leading risk factor for both deaths and DALYs in 2016, accounting for 2·2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1·5–3·0) of age-standardised female deaths and 6·8% (5·8–8·0) of age-standardised male deaths. Among the population aged 15–49 years, alcohol use was the leading risk factor globally in 2016, with 3·8% (95% UI 3·2–4·3) of female deaths and 12·2% (10·8–13·6) of male deaths attributable to alcohol use. For the population aged 15–49 years, female attributable DALYs were 2·3% (95% UI 2·0–2·6) and male attributable DALYs were 8·9% (7·8–9·9). The three leading causes of attributable deaths in this age group were tuberculosis (1·4% [95% UI 1·0–1·7] of total deaths), road injuries (1·2% [0·7–1·9]), and self-harm (1·1% [0·6–1·5]). For populations aged 50 years and older, cancers accounted for a large proportion of total alcohol-attributable deaths in 2016, constituting 27·1% (95% UI 21·2–33·3) of total alcohol-attributable female deaths and 18·9% (15·3–22·6) of male deaths. The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks per week. INTERPRETATION: Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero. These results suggest that alcohol control policies might need to be revised worldwide, refocusing on efforts to lower overall population-level consumption. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-B.1.1.529 leads to widespread escape from neutralizing antibody responses

On 24th November 2021, the sequence of a new SARS-CoV-2 viral isolate Omicron-B.1.1.529 was announced, containing far more mutations in Spike (S) than previously reported variants. Neutralization titers of Omicron by sera from vaccinees and convalescent subjects infected with early pandemic Alpha, Beta, Gamma, or Delta are substantially reduced, or the sera failed to neutralize. Titers against Omicron are boosted by third vaccine doses and are high in both vaccinated individuals and those infected by Delta. Mutations in Omicron knock out or substantially reduce neutralization by most of the large panel of potent monoclonal antibodies and antibodies under commercial development. Omicron S has structural changes from earlier viruses and uses mutations that confer tight binding to ACE2 to unleash evolution driven by immune escape. This leads to a large number of mutations in the ACE2 binding site and rebalances receptor affinity to that of earlier pandemic viruses

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca