Incident heart failure and myocardial infarction in sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor users

Objectives To compare the rates of major cardiovascular adverse events in sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4I) users in a Chinese population. Background SGLT2I and DPP4I are increasingly prescribed for type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. However, few population-based studies are comparing their effects on incident heart failure or myocardial infarction. Methods This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using the electronic health record database in Hong Kong, including type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receiving either SGLT2I or DPP4I between January 1st, 2015, to December 31st, 2020. Propensity-score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on demographics, past comorbidities, non-SGLT2I/DPP4I medications with nearest-neighbor matching (caliper=0.1). Univariable and multivariable Cox models were used to identify significant predictors for new onset heart failure, new onset myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Sensitivity analyses with competing risk models and multiple propensity score matching approaches were conducted. Subgroup age and gender analyses were presented. Results A total of 41994 patients (58.89% males, median admission age at 58 years old, interquartile rage [IQR]: 51.2-65.3) were included in the study cohorts with a median follow-up duration of 5.6 years (IQR: 5.32-5.82). After adjusting for significant demographics, past comorbidities, medication prescriptions and biochemical results, SGLT2I users have a significantly lower risk for myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.28, 0.41], P < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: [0.38, 0.74], P = 0.0002) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: [0.18, 0.25], P= 0.0001) under multivariable Cox regression. However, the risk for heart failure is comparable (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: [0.73, 1.04], P= 0.1343). Conclusions SGLT2 inhibitors are protective against adverse cardiovascular events compared to DPP4I. The prescription of SGLT2I is preferred especially for males and patients aged 65 or older to prevent cardiovascular risks

Direct and indirect control of the initiation of meiotic recombination by DNA damage checkpoint mechanisms in budding yeast

Meiotic recombination plays an essential role in the proper segregation of chromosomes at meiosis I in many sexually reproducing organisms. Meiotic recombination is initiated by the scheduled formation of genome-wide DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). The timing of DSB formation is strictly controlled because unscheduled DSB formation is detrimental to genome integrity. Here, we investigated the role of DNA damage checkpoint mechanisms in the control of meiotic DSB formation using budding yeast. By using recombination defective mutants in which meiotic DSBs are not repaired, the effect of DNA damage checkpoint mutations on DSB formation was evaluated. The Tel1 (ATM) pathway mainly responds to unresected DSB ends, thus the sae2 mutant background in which DSB ends remain intact was employed. On the other hand, the Mec1 (ATR) pathway is primarily used when DSB ends are resected, thus the rad51 dmc1 double mutant background was employed in which highly resected DSBs accumulate. In order to separate the effect caused by unscheduled cell cycle progression, which is often associated with DNA damage checkpoint defects, we also employed the ndt80 mutation which permanently arrests the meiotic cell cycle at prophase I. In the absence of Tel1, DSB formation was reduced in larger chromosomes (IV, VII, II and XI) whereas no significant reduction was found in smaller chromosomes (III and VI). On the other hand, the absence of Rad17 (a critical component of the ATR pathway) lead to an increase in DSB formation (chromosomes VII and II were tested). We propose that, within prophase I, the Tel1 pathway facilitates DSB formation, especially in bigger chromosomes, while the Mec1 pathway negatively regulates DSB formation. We also identified prophase I exit, which is under the control of the DNA damage checkpoint machinery, to be a critical event associated with down-regulating meiotic DSB formation

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

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