Mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation in autosomal dominant optic atrophy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Autosomal dominant optic atrophy (ADOA), a form of progressive bilateral blindness due to loss of retinal ganglion cells and optic nerve deterioration, arises predominantly from mutations in the nuclear gene for the mitochondrial GTPase, OPA1. OPA1 localizes to mitochondrial cristae in the inner membrane where electron transport chain complexes are enriched. While OPA1 has been characterized for its role in mitochondrial cristae structure and organelle fusion, possible effects of OPA1 on mitochondrial function have not been determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mitochondria from six ADOA patients bearing <it>OPA1 </it>mutations and ten ADOA patients with unidentified gene mutations were studied for respiratory capacity and electron transport complex function. Results suggest that the nuclear DNA mutations that give rise to ADOA in our patient population do not alter mitochondrial electron transport.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that the pathophysiology of ADOA likely stems from the role of OPA1 in mitochondrial structure or fusion and not from OPA1 support of oxidative phosphorylation.</p

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Viral manipulation of the cellular sumoylation machinery

Abstract Viruses exploit various cellular processes for their own benefit, including counteracting anti-viral responses and regulating viral replication and propagation. In the past 20 years, protein sumoylation has emerged as an important post-translational modification that is manipulated by viruses to modulate anti-viral responses, viral replication, and viral pathogenesis. The process of sumoylation is a multi-step cascade where a small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) is covalently attached to a conserved ΨKxD/E motif within a target protein, altering the function of the modified protein. Here we review how viruses manipulate the cellular machinery at each step of the sumoylation process to favor viral survival and pathogenesis

Using glycyrrhizic acid to target sumoylation processes during Epstein-Barr virus latency.

Cellular sumoylation processes are proposed targets for anti-viral and anti-cancer therapies. We reported that Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) dysregulates cellular sumoylation processes, contributing to its oncogenic potential in EBV-associated malignancies. Ginkgolic acid and anacardic acid, known inhibitors of sumoylation, inhibit LMP1-induced protein sumoylation; however, both drugs have adverse effects in hosts. Here we test the effects of glycyrrhizic acid, a medicinal botanical extract with anti-inflammatory, anti-carcinogenic, and anti-viral properties, on cellular sumoylation processes. While glycyrrhizic acid is known to inhibit EBV penetration, its affect on cellular sumoylation processes remains to be documented. We hypothesized that glycyrrhizic acid inhibits cellular sumoylation processes and may be a viable treatment for Epstein-Barr virus-associated malignancies. Results showed that glycyrrhizic acid inhibited sumoylation processes (without affecting ubiquitination processes), limited cell growth, and induced apoptosis in multiple cell lines. Similar to ginkgolic acid; glycyrrhizic acid targeted the first step of the sumoylation process and resulted in low levels of spontaneous EBV reactivation. Glycyrrhizic acid did not affect induced reactivation of the virus, but the presence of the extract did reduce the ability of the produced virus to infect additional cells. Therefore, we propose that glycyrrhizic acid may be a potential therapeutic drug to augment the treatment of EBV-associated lymphoid malignancies

Genetic basis of human circadian rhythm disorders

Circadian rhythm disorders constitute a group of phenotypes that usually present as altered sleep-wake schedules. Until a human genetics approach was applied to investigate these traits, the genetic components regulating human circadian rhythm and sleep behaviors remained mysterious. Steady advances in the last decade have dramatically improved our understanding of the genes involved in circadian rhythmicity and sleep regulation. Finding these genes presents new opportunities to use a wide range of approaches, including in vitro molecular studies and in vivo animal modeling, to elevate our understanding of how sleep and circadian rhythms are regulated and maintained. Ultimately, this knowledge will reveal how circadian and sleep disruption contribute to various ailments and shed light on how best to maintain and recover good health