Correlation of gene expression and protein production rate - a system wide study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Growth rate is a major determinant of intracellular function. However its effects can only be properly dissected with technically demanding chemostat cultivations in which it can be controlled. Recent work on <it>Saccharomyces cerevisiae </it>chemostat cultivations provided the first analysis on genome wide effects of growth rate. In this work we study the filamentous fungus <it>Trichoderma reesei </it>(<it>Hypocrea jecorina</it>) that is an industrial protein production host known for its exceptional protein secretion capability. Interestingly, it exhibits a low growth rate protein production phenotype.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We have used transcriptomics and proteomics to study the effect of growth rate and cell density on protein production in chemostat cultivations of <it>T. reesei</it>. Use of chemostat allowed control of growth rate and exact estimation of the extracellular specific protein production rate (SPPR). We find that major biosynthetic activities are all negatively correlated with SPPR. We also find that expression of many genes of secreted proteins and secondary metabolism, as well as various lineage specific, mostly unknown genes are positively correlated with SPPR. Finally, we enumerate possible regulators and regulatory mechanisms, arising from the data, for this response.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on these results it appears that in low growth rate protein production energy is very efficiently used primarly for protein production. Also, we propose that flux through early glycolysis or the TCA cycle is a more fundamental determining factor than growth rate for low growth rate protein production and we propose a novel eukaryotic response to this i.e. the lineage specific response (LSR).</p

State of the Art Review: Emerging Therapies: The Use of Insulin Sensitizers in the Treatment of Adolescents with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)

PCOS, a heterogeneous disorder characterized by cystic ovarian morphology, androgen excess, and/or irregular periods, emerges during or shortly after puberty. Peri- and post-pubertal obesity, insulin resistance and consequent hyperinsulinemia are highly prevalent co-morbidities of PCOS and promote an ongoing state of excess androgen. Given the relationship of insulin to androgen excess, reduction of insulin secretion and/or improvement of its action at target tissues offer the possibility of improving the physical stigmata of androgen excess by correction of the reproductive dysfunction and preventing metabolic derangements from becoming entrenched. While lifestyle changes that concentrate on behavioral, dietary and exercise regimens should be considered as first line therapy for weight reduction and normalization of insulin levels in adolescents with PCOS, several therapeutic options are available and in wide use, including oral contraceptives, metformin, thiazolidenediones and spironolactone. Overwhelmingly, the data on the safety and efficacy of these medications derive from the adult PCOS literature. Despite the paucity of randomized control trials to adequately evaluate these modalities in adolescents, their use, particularly that of metformin, has gained popularity in the pediatric endocrine community. In this article, we present an overview of the use of insulin sensitizing medications in PCOS and review both the adult and (where available) adolescent literature, focusing specifically on the use of metformin in both mono- and combination therapy

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P = 0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events