Tissue Microenvironments Define and Get Reinforced by Macrophage Phenotypes in Homeostasis or during Inflammation, Repair and Fibrosis

Current macrophage phenotype classifications are based on distinct in vitro culture conditions that do not adequately mirror complex tissue environments. In vivo monocyte progenitors populate all tissues for immune surveillance which supports the maintenance of homeostasis as well as regaining homeostasis after injury. Here we propose to classify macrophage phenotypes according to prototypical tissue environments, e.g. as they occur during homeostasis as well as during the different phases of (dermal) wound healing. In tissue necrosis and/or infection, damage- and/or pathogen-associated molecular patterns induce proinflammatory macrophages by Toll-like receptors or inflammasomes. Such classically activated macrophages contribute to further tissue inflammation and damage. Apoptotic cells and antiinflammatory cytokines dominate in postinflammatory tissues which induce macrophages to produce more antiinflammatory mediators. Similarly, tumor-associated macrophages also confer immunosuppression in tumor stroma. Insufficient parenchymal healing despite abundant growth factors pushes macrophages to gain a profibrotic phenotype and promote fibrocyte recruitment which both enforce tissue scarring. Ischemic scars are largely devoid of cytokines and growth factors so that fibrolytic macrophages that predominantly secrete proteases digest the excess extracellular matrix. Together, macrophages stabilize their surrounding tissue microenvironments by adapting different phenotypes as feed-forward mechanisms to maintain tissue homeostasis or regain it following injury. Furthermore, macrophage heterogeneity in healthy or injured tissues mirrors spatial and temporal differences in microenvironments during the various stages of tissue injury and repair. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

A comparison of low-dose risperidone to paroxetine in the treatment of panic attacks: a randomized, single-blind study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Because a large proportion of patients with panic attacks receiving approved pharmacotherapy do not respond or respond poorly to medication, it is important to identify additional therapeutic strategies for the management of panic symptoms. This article describes a randomized, rater-blind study comparing low-dose risperidone to standard-of-care paroxetine for the treatment of panic attacks.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty six subjects with a history of panic attacks were randomized to receive either risperidone or paroxetine. The subjects were then followed for eight weeks. Outcome measures included the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (Ham-A), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D), the Sheehan Panic Anxiety Scale-Patient (SPAS-P), and the Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All subjects demonstrated a reduction in both the frequency and severity of panic attacks regardless of treatment received. Statistically significant improvements in rating scale scores for both groups were identified for the PDSS, the Ham-A, the Ham-D, and the CGI. There was no difference between treatment groups in the improvement in scores on the measures PDSS, Ham-A, Ham-D, and CGI. Post hoc tests suggest that subjects receiving risperidone may have a quicker clinical response than subjects receiving paroxetine.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We can identify no difference in the efficacy of paroxetine and low-dose risperidone in the treatment of panic attacks. Low-dose risperidone appears to be tolerated equally well as paroxetine. Low-dose risperidone may be an effective treatment for anxiety disorders in which panic attacks are a significant component.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT100457106</p

Spatiotemporal distribution and fluctuation of radiocesium in Tokyo Bay in the five years following the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident - Fig 7

<p><b>Temporal changes in activity (a) and inventory and flux (b) of</b>^{<b>134+137</b>}<b>Cs at Point D.</b> Contaminated layer is defined as the layer including the detectable ¹³⁴Cs. The ^134+137Cs activity in the contaminated layer is estimated by the vertical distribution in the layer. Flux was calculated by dividing the inventory by elapsed time since the FDNPP accident.</p