20 research outputs found

    The Genetics of Diabetic Nephropathy

    No full text
    Up to 40% of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes will develop diabetic nephropathy (DN), resulting in chronic kidney disease and potential organ failure. There is evidence for a heritable genetic susceptibility to DN, but despite intensive research efforts the causative genes remain elusive. Recently, genome-wide association studies have discovered several novel genetic variants associated with DN. The identification of such variants may potentially allow for early identification of at risk patients. Here we review the current understanding of the key molecular mechanisms and genetic architecture of DN, and discuss the merits of employing an integrative approach to incorporate datasets from multiple sources (genetics, transcriptomics, epigenetic, proteomic) in order to fully elucidate the genetic elements contributing to this serious complication of diabetes

    Gap junctions amplify spatial variations in cell volume in proliferating tumor spheroids

    No full text
    © 2020, The Author(s). Sustained proliferation is a significant driver of cancer progression. Cell-cycle advancement is coupled with cell size, but it remains unclear how multiple cells interact to control their volume in 3D clusters. In this study, we propose a mechano-osmotic model to investigate the evolution of volume dynamics within multicellular systems. Volume control depends on an interplay between multiple cellular constituents, including gap junctions, mechanosensitive ion channels, energy-consuming ion pumps, and the actomyosin cortex, that coordinate to manipulate cellular osmolarity. In connected cells, we show that mechanical loading leads to the emergence of osmotic pressure gradients between cells with consequent increases in cellular ion concentrations driving swelling. We identify how gap junctions can amplify spatial variations in cell volume within multicellular spheroids and, further, describe how the process depends on proliferation-induced solid stress. Our model may provide new insight into the role of gap junctions in breast cancer progression

    Hydraulický agregát s pneumatickým motorem

    Get PDF
    Import 20/04/2006Prezenční výpůjčkaVŠB - Technická univerzita Ostrava. Fakulta strojní. Katedra (338) hydromechaniky a hydraulických zařízen

    Feedback between mechanosensitive signaling and active forces governs endothelial junction integrity

    Get PDF
    The formation and recovery of gaps in the vascular endothelium governs a wide range of physiological and pathological phenomena, from angiogenesis to tumor cell extravasation. However, the interplay between the mechanical and signaling processes that drive dynamic behavior in vascular endothelial cells is not well understood. In this study, we propose a chemo-mechanical model to investigate the regulation of endothelial junctions as dependent on the feedback between actomyosin contractility, VE-cadherin bond turnover, and actin polymerization, which mediate the forces exerted on the cell-cell interface. Simulations reveal that active cell tension can stabilize cadherin bonds, but excessive RhoA signaling can drive bond dissociation and junction failure. While actin polymerization aids gap closure, high levels of Rac1 can induce junction weakening. Combining the modeling framework with experiments, our model predicts the influence of pharmacological treatments on the junction state and identifies that a critical balance between RhoA and Rac1 expression is required to maintain junction stability. Our proposed framework can help guide the development of therapeutics that target the Rho family of GTPases and downstream active mechanical processes

    A linear prognostic score based on the ratio of interleukin-6 to interleukin-10 predicts outcomes in COVID-19

    No full text
    Background: Prognostic tools are required to guide clinical decision-making in COVID-19.Methods: We studied the relationship between the ratio of interleukin (IL)-6 to IL-10 and clinical outcome in 80 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, and created a simple 5-point linear score predictor of clinical outcome, the Dublin-Boston score. Clinical outcome was analysed as a three-level ordinal variable ("Improved", "Unchanged", or "Declined"). For both IL-6:IL-10 ratio and IL-6 alone, we associated clinical outcome with a) baseline biomarker levels, b) change in biomarker level from day 0 to day 2, c) change in biomarker from day 0 to day 4, and d) slope of biomarker change throughout the study. The associations between ordinal clinical outcome and each of the different predictors were performed with proportional odds logistic regression. Associations were run both "unadjusted" and adjusted for age and sex. Nested cross-validation was used to identify the model for incorporation into the Dublin-Boston score.Findings: The 4-day change in IL-6:IL-10 ratio was chosen to derive the Dublin-Boston score. Each 1 point increase in the score was associated with a 5.6 times increased odds for a more severe outcome (OR 5.62, 95% CI -3.22-9.81, P = 1.2 × 10-9). Both the Dublin-Boston score and the 4-day change in IL-6:IL-10 significantly outperformed IL-6 alone in predicting clinical outcome at day 7.Interpretation: The Dublin-Boston score is easily calculated and can be applied to a spectrum of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. More informed prognosis could help determine when to escalate care, institute or remove mechanical ventilation, or drive considerations for therapies.</p

    Corrigendum to 'A linear prognostic score based on the ratio of interleukin-6 to interleukin-10 predicts outcomes in COVID-19'

    No full text
    The authors wish to correct a typographical error in the manuscript. In both the abstract and Section 3.4 of the original manuscript, a 1-point increase in the Dublin-Boston score was described as being associated with a 5.6 times increased odds (OR 5.62, 95% CI = 3.229.81, P = 1.2 £ 109 ) for a more severe outcome. While the OR and P-value stated are correct, the CI should instead have read “3.229.81”. The CI listed in Table 3 of the original manuscript, which accompanied Section 3.4, is correct. The authors regret any confusion caused, and appreciate the opportunity to correct this mistake.</div
    corecore