Can space-for-time-substitution surveys represent zooplankton biodiversity patterns and their relationship to environmental drivers?

Space-for-Time-Substitution surveys (SFTS) are commonly used to describe zooplankton community dynamics and to determine lake ecosystem health. SFTS surveys typically combine single point observations from many lakes to evaluate the response of zooplankton community structure and dynamics (e.g., species abundance and biomass, diversity, demographics and modeled rate processes) to spatial gradients in hypothesized environmental drivers (e.g., temperature, nutrients, predation), in lieu of tracking such responses over long time scales. However, the reliability and reproducibility of SFTS zooplankton surveys have not yet been comprehensively tested against empirically-based community dynamics from longterm monitoring efforts distributed worldwide. We use a recently compiled global data set of more than 100 lake zooplankton time series to test whether SFTS surveys can accurately capture zooplankton diversity, and the hypothesized relationship with temperature, using simulated SFTS surveys of the time series data. Specifically, we asked: (1) to what degree can SFTS surveys capture observed biodiversity dynamics; (2) how does timing and duration of sampling affect detected biodiversity patterns; (3) does biodiversity ubiquitously increase with temperature across lakes, or vary by climate zone or lake type; and (4) do results from SFTS surveys produce comparable biodiversity-temperature relationship(s) to empirical data within and among lakes? Testing biodiversity-ecosystem function (BEF) relationships, and the drivers of such relationships, requires a solid data basis. Our work provides a global perspective on the design and usefulness of (long-term) zooplankton monitoring programs and how much confidence we can place in the zooplankton biodiversity patterns observed from SFTS surveys

Clinical Symptoms in Fibromyalgia Are Better Associated to Lipid Peroxidation Levels in Blood Mononuclear Cells Rather than in Plasma

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.[Background] We examined lipid peroxidation (LPO) in blood mononuclear cells (BMCs) and plasma, as a marker of oxidative damage, and its association to clinical symptoms in Fibromyalgia (FM) patients. [Methods]: We conducted a case–control and correlational study comparing 65 patients and 45 healthy controls. Clinical parameters were evaluated using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), visual analogues scales (VAS), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Oxidative stress was determined by measuring LPO in BMCs and plasma. [Results]: We found increased LPO levels in BMCs and plasma from FM patients as compared to normal control (P<0.001). A significant correlation between LPO in BMCs and clinical parameters was observed (r = 0.584, P<0.001 for VAS; r = 0.823, P<0.001 for FIQ total score; and r = 0.875, P<0.01 for depression in the BDI). We also found a positive correlation between LPO in plasma and clinical symptoms (r = 0.452, P<0.001 for VAS; r = 0.578, P<0.001 for FIQ total score; and r = 0.579, P<0.001 for depression in the BDI). Partial correlation analysis controlling for age and BMI, and sex, showed that both LPO in cells and plasma were independently associated to clinical symptoms. However, LPO in cells, but not LPO in plasma, was independently associated to clinical symptoms when controlling for depression (BDI scores). [Discussion]: The results of this study suggest a role for oxidative stress in the pathophysiology of fibromyalgia and that LPO in BMCs rather than LPO in plasma is better associated to clinical symptoms in FM.This work was supported by Spanish FIS PI080500 grant, and FIS EC08/00076 grant, Ministerio de Sanidad, Spain, and Federación Andaluza de Fibromialgia y Fatiga Crónica (ALBA Andalucía). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewe

Oxidative Stress Correlates with Headache Symptoms in Fibromyalgia: Coenzyme Q10 Effect on Clinical Improvement

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.[Background]: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain syndrome with unknown etiology and a wide spectrum of symptoms such as allodynia, debilitating fatigue, joint stiffness and migraine. Recent studies have shown some evidences demonstrating that oxidative stress is associated to clinical symptoms in FM of fibromyalgia. We examined oxidative stress and bioenergetic status in blood mononuclear cells (BMCs) and its association to headache symptoms in FM patients. The effects of oral coenzyme Q 10 (CoQ 10) supplementation on biochemical markers and clinical improvement were also evaluated. [Methods]: We studied 20 FM patients and 15 healthy controls. Clinical parameters were evaluated using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), visual analogues scales (VAS), and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6). Oxidative stress was determined by measuring CoQ 10, catalase and lipid peroxidation (LPO) levels in BMCs. Bioenergetic status was assessed by measuring ATP levels in BMCs. [Results]: We found decreased CoQ 10, catalase and ATP levels in BMCs from FM patients as compared to normal control (P<0.05 and P<0.001, respectively) We also found increased level of LPO in BMCs from FM patients as compared to normal control (P<0.001). Significant negative correlations between CoQ 10 or catalase levels in BMCs and headache parameters were observed (r = -0.59, P<0.05; r = -0.68, P<0.05, respectively). Furthermore, LPO levels showed a significant positive correlation with HIT-6 (r = 0.33, P<.05). Oral CoQ 10 supplementation restored biochemical parameters and induced a significant improvement in clinical and headache symptoms (P<0.001). [Discussion]: The results of this study suggest a role for mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in the headache symptoms associated with FM. CoQ10 supplementation should be examined in a larger placebo controlled trial as a possible treatment in FM.This work has been supported by IV Plan Propio de Investigación (University of Seville, ref. 2010/00000453), FIS PI10/00543 grant, FIS EC08/00076 grant, Ministerio de Sanidad, Spain and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER-Unión Europea), SAS 111242 grant, Servicio Andaluz de Salud-Junta de Andalucía, Proyecto de Investigación de Excelencia de la Junta de Andalucía CTS-5725 and Federación Andaluza de Fibromialgia y Fatiga Crónica (ALBA Andalucía).Peer Reviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)