Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Checklist of the helminth parasites of the genus Profundulus Hubbs, 1924 (Cyprinodontiformes, Profundulidae), an endemic family of freshwater fishes in Middle-America

From December 2012 to November 2014, 267 fish belonging to the family Profundulidae (representing nine of the 11 species of the genus Profundulus) were collected in 26 localities of Middle-America, across southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras, comprising the distribution range of the genus, and analyzed for helminth parasites. Additionally, a database with all ten available published accounts of the helminth parasite fauna of this genus (the only genus within the family) was assembled. Based on both sources of information, a checklist containing all the records was compiled as a tool to address future questions in the areas of evolutionary biology, biogeography, ecology and phylogeography of this host-parasite association. The helminth parasite fauna of this fish group consists of 20 nominal species, classified in 17 genera and 14 families. It includes six species of adult digeneans, five metacercariae, two monogeneans, one adult cestode, three adult nematodes and three larval nematodes. The profundulid fishes are parasitized by a specialized group of helminth species (e.g.Paracreptotrema blancoisensuSalgado-Maldonado et al. (2011b), Paracreptotrema profundulusi Salgado-Maldonado, Caspeta-Mandujano & Martínez Ramírez, 2011, Phyllodistomum spinopapillatum Pérez-Ponce de León, Pinacho-Pinacho, Mendoza-Garfias & García-Varela, 2015, Spinitectus humbertoi Mandujano-Caspeta & Moravec, 2000, S. mariaisabelae Caspeta-Mandujano Cabañas-Carranza & Salgado-Maldonado, 2007 and Rhabdochona salgadoi Mandujano-Caspeta & Moravec, 2000), representing the core helminth fauna that are not shared with other Middle-American fish species

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m(2), and duration of T2DM was 9.3 ± 8.2 years. The qualifying ACS was a myocardial infarction in 83% and unstable angina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. CONCLUSION: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk

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