Discovery of a new pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor eradicating glioblastoma-initiating cells

Background. Glioblastoma-initiating cells (GICs) comprise a tumorigenic subpopulation of cells that are resistant to radio- and chemotherapies and are responsible for cancer recurrence. The aim of this study was to identify novel compounds that specifically eradicate GICs using a high throughput drug screening approach. Methods. We performed a cell proliferation/death-based drug screening using 10560 independent compounds. We identified dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) as a target protein of hit compound 10580 using ligand-fishing and mass spectrometry analysis. The medical efficacy of 10580 was investigated by in vitro cell proliferation/death and differentiation and in vivo tumorigenic assays. Results. Among the effective compounds, we identified 10580, which induced cell cycle arrest, decreased the expression of stem cell factors in GICs, and prevented tumorigenesis upon oral administration without any visible side effects. Mechanistic studies revealed that 10580 decreased pyrimidine nucleotide levels and enhanced sex determining region Y-box 2 nuclear export by antagonizing the enzyme activity of DHODH, an essential enzyme for the de novo pyrimidine synthesis. Conclusion. In this study, we identified 10580 as a promising new drug against GICs. Given that normal tissue cells, in particular brain cells, tend to use the alternative salvage pathway for pyrimidine synthesis, our findings suggest that 10580 can be used for glioblastoma therapy without side effects

Meta-analyses of individual versus group interventions for pre-school children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

<div><p>There is little evidence regarding the effects of individual and group intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on important outcomes. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to investigate the effectiveness of the individual and group intervention studies and to compare the effectiveness of these two types if possible. The main analysis which excluded studies at a high risk of bias (Analysis I) included 14 randomised controlled trials targeting children with ASD≤6 years of age (594 children). The results suggested that both individual and group interventions showed significant effects compared to the control condition on “reciprocity of social interaction towards others” (standard mean difference[SMD] [95%confidence interval{CI}] = 0.59[0.25, 0.93], p = 0.16; 0.45[0.02, 0.88], p = 0.39, respectively). Only individual interventions showed significant effects compared to the control condition on “parental synchrony” (SMD [95%CI] = 0.99 [0.70, 1.29], p<0.01). Our results showed no significant differences between individual and group interventions in effects on “autism general symptoms” (no study available for group intervention), “developmental quotient” (no study available for group intervention), “expressive language” (p = 0.56), “receptive language” (p = 0.29), “reciprocity of social interaction towards others” (p = 0.62), or “adaptive behaviour” (p = 0.43). We also performed sensitivity analyses including studies that had been excluded due to being at a high risk of potential bias (Analysis II). The results suggested that “reciprocity of social interactions towards others” showed significant effects for individual intervention compared to the control condition (0.50[0.31,0.69], p<0.001) but not for group intervention (0.23[-0.33, 0.78], p = 0.42). Individual intervention also showed significant effects on “parental synchrony” (0.98[0.30,1.66], p = 0.005) in the sensitivity analysis. The results also suggested no significant difference on all the outcomes between the individual and group interventions. We also reanalysed the data using cluster-robust standard errors as sensitivity analyses (Analysis III). Analysis III showed no significant effects in the intervention condition compared to the control condition on all the outcomes for both individual and group interventions. When Analysis II was reanalysed using cluster-robust standard errors (Analysis IV), individual interventions showed significant effects compared to the control condition on “reciprocity of social interaction towards others” and "parental synchrony" (mean estimate[95%CI], robust standard error, p = 0.50[0.20, 0.81], 0.13, 0.006; and 1.06[0.08, 2.05], 0.42, 0.04, respectively), and none of the outcomes showed significant effects under the intervention condition compared to the control condition for group interventions. The discrepancies in the results between the main analysis (Analysis I) and the sensitivity analyses (Analyses II, III, and IV) may be due to the small number of included studies. Since the outcome of “reciprocity of social interaction towards others” can be a dependent variable that is usually measured in a context-bound setting with the child's parent, we cannot conclude that individual interventions for pre-school children with ASD have significant effects on generalised skills for engaging in reciprocal interactions with others, even if the interventions have significant effects on the outcome. However, the outcomes of “reciprocity of social interaction towards others” may be promising targets for both individual and group interventions involving pre-school children with ASD. “Parental synchrony” may also be a promising target for individual interventions.</p><p><b>Trial registration:</b> (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22396224" target="_blank">CRD42011001349</a>).</p></div

A systematic review and meta-analysis of comprehensive interventions for pre-school children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

<div><p>Background</p><p>There has an increasing number of published trials on psychosocial intervention programmes for pre-school children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To achieve better quality of unbiased evidence for the effectiveness of ASD interventions, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive review that covers studies with adequate quality standards, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and different types of intervention In this study, we categorize interventions for ASD as behavioural, social-communication focused, and multimodal developmental based on Howlin’s classification of early interventions for children with ASD. The aim of this study was to compare these three models and investigate the strengths and weaknesses of each type of intervention and to identify the approaches that contribute to a successful outcome for children with autism.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included RCTs targeting children with ASD 6 years old or younger. A random effects model was used to present the effect estimate for the outcomes. This study also performed combined meta-analyses of all the three models to investigate the overall effectiveness of the intervention programmes.</p><p>Results</p><p>32 randomized controlled studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. The synthesized data included 594 children from 14 RCTs. There was no statistically significant difference in the effects on autism general symptoms between the social-communication-focused model and the multimodal developmental model (p = 0.83). The results suggest that there is evidence of an effect on ‘reciprocity of social interaction towards others’ (standard mean difference [95% confidential interval] = 0.53[0.29,0.78], p<0.01) and ‘parental synchrony’ (SMD = 0.99[0.70,1.29], p<0.01).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The small number of studies included in the present study limited the ability to make inferences when comparing the three models and investigating the strengths and weaknesses of each type of intervention with respect to important outcomes. Since the outcome of ‘reciprocity of social interaction towards others’ could be a dependent variable that might be context-bound to interactions with the child’s parent, we cannot conclude the interventions for pre-school children with ASD have significant effects on a generalized skill to engage in reciprocal interactions with others. However, the outcomes of ‘reciprocity of social interaction towards others’ and ‘parental synchrony’ may be promising targets for interventions involving pre-school children with ASD.</p><p>Trial registration</p><p>Prospero <a target="_blank">CRD42011001349</a></p></div

'Risk of bias' summary.

<p>'Risk of bias' summary.</p

The results of sensitivity analyses for Analysis I with cluster-robust variance estimation (Analysis III).

<p>The results of sensitivity analyses for Analysis I with cluster-robust variance estimation (Analysis III).</p

Forest plot of “initiating joint attention” (Analysis I).

<p>Forest plot of “initiating joint attention” (Analysis I).</p

The result of the meta-analysis on each outcome.

<p>The result of the meta-analysis on each outcome.</p

Forest plot of “qualitative impairment in social interaction” (Analysis I).

<p>Forest plot of “qualitative impairment in social interaction” (Analysis I).</p

PRISMA 2009 flow diagram of this study.

<p>PRISMA 2009 flow diagram of this study.</p