Protection of ischemic myocardium in dogs using intracoronary 2,3-butanedione monoxime (BDM)

Abstract Background. -Actomyosin ATPase is one of the major ATP consuming enzymes in the myocardium. We tested whether 2,3-butanedione monoxime (BDM), a reversible inhibitor of actomyosin ATPase, given before coronary occlusion, limits infarct size in anesthetized open-chest dogs. Methods and results. -After circumflex artery catheterization using fluoroscopic guidance, BDM (125 mM) or buffer vehicle was infused (12.0 ml/min) for 20 min (BDM-20, n = 5 and Buffer-20, n = 6) or for 5 min (BDM-5, n = 6 and Buffer-5, n = 6) prior to 60 min of ischemia and 3 h of reperfusion. BDM administration increased subendocardial blood flow 271% above baseline flow (radioactive microspheres), and systolic wall thickening was converted to wall bulging (wall thickening by sonomicrometry was -27 ± 29% and -22 ± 13% of baseline in BDM-20 and BDM-5, respectively). Adjusted mean infarct size (% area-at-risk) was 11.0 ± 2.8% and 11.9 ± 2.6% in BDM-20 and BDM-5 vs. 20.2 ± 2.5% and 20.5 ± 2.5% in Buffer-20 and Buffer-5 (ancova, P < 0.05 for each BDM vs. Buffer group). Measurement of glycolytic metabolites and the adenine nucleotide pool of myocardium paced electronically at 150 beats per minute during total ischemia at 37°C following BDM showed a metabolic response similar to that seen in ischemic preconditioning. ATP depletion, nucleoside production, and lactate accumulation were slowed in ischemic tissue treated with BDM. Conclusion. -BDM given before the onset of ischemia markedly limited infarct size and reduced energy demand after the onset of ischemia. The explanation for the reduced infarct size induced by BDM treatment is hypothesized to be the persistent reduction in energy demand found in ischemic BDM treated myocardium

Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns

Early rheumatoid arthritis is characterized by a distinct and transient synovial fluid cytokine profile of T cell and stromal cell origin

Pathological processes involved in the initiation of rheumatoid synovitis remain unclear. We undertook the present study to identify immune and stromal processes that are present soon after the clinical onset of rheumatoid arthritis ( RA) by assessing a panel of T cell, macrophage, and stromal cell related cytokines and chemokines in the synovial fluid of patients with early synovitis. Synovial fluid was aspirated from inflamed joints of patients with inflammatory arthritis of duration 3 months or less, whose outcomes were subsequently determined by follow up. For comparison, synovial fluid was aspirated from patients with acute crystal arthritis, established RA and osteoarthritis. Rheumatoid factor activity was blocked in the synovial fluid samples, and a panel of 23 cytokines and chemokines measured using a multiplex based system. Patients with early inflammatory arthritis who subsequently developed RA had a distinct but transient synovial fluid cytokine profile. The levels of a range of T cell, macrophage and stromal cell related cytokines ( e. g. IL-2, IL-4, IL-13, IL-17, IL-15, basic fibroblast growth factor and epidermal growth factor) were significantly elevated in these patients within 3 months after symptom onset, as compared with early arthritis patients who did not develop RA. In addition, this profile was no longer present in established RA. In contrast, patients with non-rheumatoid persistent synovitis exhibited elevated levels of interferon-gamma at initiation. Early synovitis destined to develop into RA is thus characterized by a distinct and transient synovial fluid cytokine profile. The cytokines present in the early rheumatoid lesion suggest that this response is likely to influence the microenvironment required for persistent RA