The diacylglycerol kinase α/Atypical PKC/β1 integrin pathway in SDF-1α mammary carcinoma invasiveness

Diacylglycerol kinase α (DGKα), by phosphorylating diacylglycerol into phosphatidic acid, provides a key signal driving cell migration and matrix invasion. We previously demonstrated that in epithelial cells activation of DGKα activity promotes cytoskeletal remodeling and matrix invasion by recruiting atypical PKC at ruffling sites and by promoting RCP-mediated recycling of α5β1 integrin to the tip of pseudopods. In here we investigate the signaling pathway by which DGKα mediates SDF-1α-induced matrix invasion of MDA-MB-231 invasive breast carcinoma cells. Indeed we showed that, following SDF-1α stimulation, DGKα is activated and localized at cell protrusion, thus promoting their elongation and mediating SDF-1α induced MMP-9 metalloproteinase secretion and matrix invasion. Phosphatidic acid generated by DGKα promotes localization at cell protrusions of atypical PKCs which play an essential role downstream of DGKα by promoting Rac-mediated protrusion elongation and localized recruitment of β1 integrin and MMP-9. We finally demonstrate that activation of DGKα, atypical PKCs signaling and β1 integrin are all essential for MDA-MB-231 invasiveness. These data indicates the existence of a SDF-1α induced DGKα - atypical PKC - β1 integrin signaling pathway, which is essential for matrix invasion of carcinoma cells

The labor market effects of technology shocks

We analyze the effects of neutral and investment-specific technology shocks on hours worked and unemployment. We characterize the response of unemployment in terms of job separation and job finding rates. We find that job separation rates mainly account for the impact response of unemployment while job finding rates for movements along its adjustment path. Neutral shocks increase unemployment and explain a substantial portion of unemployment and output volatilityinvestment-specific shocks expand employment and hours worked and mostly contribute to hours worked volatility. We show that this evidence is consistent with the view that neutral technological progress prompts Schumpeterian creative destruction, while investment specific technological progress has standard neoclassical feature

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care