The identification of a non-dialyzable proteinase inhibitor with the dialyzable from eggplant exocarps (Agricultural Chemistry)

ナスビ外皮より非透析性のプロテアーゼインヒビターを精製した。塩析, 熱処理, DEAE-セファデックスおよびゲル漏過を用いたが, 最初の段階を除いては, 透析は行わず, 脱塩はすべてダイヤファルターを用いた。このようにして精製したインヒビターは, その分子量, トリプシンやキモトリプシンに対する挙動, またアミノ酸組成の点からみて, 透析性およびアセチル化セルロースを透析に用いて精製したインヒビターと全く同じものであった。そしてナスビ外皮には主要なインヒビターとしては一種類しか存在しないことが明らかとなった。しかし分子量6000のインヒビターが, 未精製のとき, 何故, 透析膜中に残存するかは依然として不明である。Non-dialyzable proteinase inhibtor was purified from eggplant exocarp. The salting out, heat-treatment, DEAE-Sephadex and gel chromatographies were used, and the ultrafiltration was used instead of dialysis except first purification step. The molecular weight, inhibition behaviour for proteinases and amino acid composition were the same as those of purified inhibitor by the other methods. These results show that the non-dialyzable and dialyzable inhibitors are identical and only one kind of inhibitor exists in eggplant exocarp as the main inhibitor. However, the reason why the inhibitor of molecular weight of 6000 in crude stage remains in dialyzing tube, is still unclear

The homogeneity of the purified dialysable proteinase inhibitor from eggplant exocarp (Agricultural Chemistry)

ナスビ果皮より単離精製されたトリプシン・インヒビターの均一性をセフアデックスG-50によるゲルロ過やデイスクおよびSDSポリアクリルアミドゲル電気泳動によって, しらべた。このインヒビター標品は完全に均一な蛋白質であることが判明した。またこのインヒビターはゲルロ過, SDSポリアクリルアミドゲル電気泳動および沈降平衡法によって, 分子量約6000であることが明らかになったが, この値は, 植物由来のインヒビターとして最小のものである。The homogeneity of the protein-like dialysable proteinase inhibitor purified from eggplant exocarp was investigated by gel chromatography on Sephadex G-50 and by disc and SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoreses. These analyses showed this inhibitor preparation was homogeneous protein. The molecular weight of this inhibitor was estimated to be approximately 6000 by the methods of gel chromatography, SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and equilibrium centrifugation

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

Abstract Background 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

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

Abstract Background 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