Involvement of yeast HSP90 isoforms in response to stress and cell death induced by acetic acid

Acetic acid-induced apoptosis in yeast is accompanied by an impairment of the general protein synthesis machinery, yet paradoxically also by the up-regulation of the two isoforms of the heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) chaperone family, Hsc82p and Hsp82p. Herein, we show that impairment of cap-dependent translation initiation induced by acetic acid is caused by the phosphorylation and inactivation of eIF2 alpha by Gcn2p kinase. A microarray analysis of polysome-associated mRNAs engaged in translation in acetic acid challenged cells further revealed that HSP90 mRNAs are over-represented in this polysome fraction suggesting preferential translation of HSP90 upon acetic acid treatment. The relevance of HSP90 isoform translation during programmed cell death (PCD) was unveiled using genetic and pharmacological abrogation of HSP90, which suggests opposing roles for HSP90 isoforms in cell survival and death. Hsc82p appears to promote survival and its deletion leads to necrotic cell death, while Hsp82p is a pro-death molecule involved in acetic acid-induced apoptosis. Therefore, HSP90 isoforms have distinct roles in the control of cell fate during PCD and their selective translation regulates cellular response to acetic acid stress.This work was supported by Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia and COMPETE/QREN/EU (PTDC/BIA-MIC/114116/2009), and by the Canadian Institute for Health Research (MOP 89737 to MH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Anti-infectives in Drug Delivery-Overcoming the Gram-Negative Bacterial Cell Envelope.

Infectious diseases are becoming a major menace to the state of health worldwide, with difficulties in effective treatment especially of nosocomial infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria being increasingly reported. Inadequate permeation of anti-infectives into or across the Gram-negative bacterial cell envelope, due to its intrinsic barrier function as well as barrier enhancement mediated by resistance mechanisms, can be identified as one of the major reasons for insufficient therapeutic effects. Several in vitro, in silico, and in cellulo models are currently employed to increase the knowledge of anti-infective transport processes into or across the bacterial cell envelope; however, all such models exhibit drawbacks or have limitations with respect to the information they are able to provide. Thus, new approaches which allow for more comprehensive characterization of anti-infective permeation processes (and as such, would be usable as screening methods in early drug discovery and development) are desperately needed. Furthermore, delivery methods or technologies capable of enhancing anti-infective permeation into or across the bacterial cell envelope are required. In this respect, particle-based carrier systems have already been shown to provide the opportunity to overcome compound-related difficulties and allow for targeted delivery. In addition, formulations combining efflux pump inhibitors or antimicrobial peptides with anti-infectives show promise in the restoration of antibiotic activity in resistant bacterial strains. Despite considerable progress in this field however, the design of carriers to specifically enhance transport across the bacterial envelope or to target difficult-to-treat (e.g., intracellular) infections remains an urgently needed area of improvement. What follows is a summary and evaluation of the state of the art of both bacterial permeation models and advanced anti-infective formulation strategies, together with an outlook for future directions in these fields

sj-docx-1-phr-10.1177_00333549231222479 – Supplemental material for The Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Study: Methods and Initial Outcomes From an 18-Month Study of Patients in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-phr-10.1177_00333549231222479 for The Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Study: Methods and Initial Outcomes From an 18-Month Study of Patients in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder by Jill A. Dever, Marci F. Hertz, Laura J. Dunlap, John S. Richardson, Sara Beth Wolicki, Bradley B. Biggers, Mark J. Edlund, Michele K. Bohm, Didier Turcios, Xinyi Jiang, Hong Zhou, Mary E. Evans and Gery P. Guy in Public Health Reports</p

Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older. METHODS: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose. RESULTS: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3). CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.)