Lack of Chemokine Signaling through CXCR5 Causes Increased Mortality, Ventricular Dilatation and Deranged Matrix during Cardiac Pressure Overload

RATIONALE: Inflammatory mechanisms have been suggested to play a role in the development of heart failure (HF), but a role for chemokines is largely unknown. Based on their role in inflammation and matrix remodeling in other tissues, we hypothesized that CXCL13 and CXCR5 could be involved in cardiac remodeling during HF. OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the role of the chemokine CXCL13 and its receptor CXCR5 in cardiac pathophysiology leading to HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mice harboring a systemic knockout of the CXCR5 (CXCR5(-/-)) displayed increased mortality during a follow-up of 80 days after aortic banding (AB). Following three weeks of AB, CXCR5(-/-) developed significant left ventricular (LV) dilatation compared to wild type (WT) mice. Microarray analysis revealed altered expression of several small leucine-rich proteoglycans (SLRPs) that bind to collagen and modulate fibril assembly. Protein levels of fibromodulin, decorin and lumican (all SLRPs) were significantly reduced in AB CXCR5(-/-) compared to AB WT mice. Electron microscopy revealed loosely packed extracellular matrix with individual collagen fibers and small networks of proteoglycans in AB CXCR5(-/-) mice. Addition of CXCL13 to cultured cardiac fibroblasts enhanced the expression of SLRPs. In patients with HF, we observed increased myocardial levels of CXCR5 and SLRPs, which was reversed following LV assist device treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of CXCR5 leads to LV dilatation and increased mortality during pressure overload, possibly via lack of an increase in SLRPs. This study demonstrates a critical role of the chemokine CXCL13 and CXCR5 in survival and maintaining of cardiac structure upon pressure overload, by regulating proteoglycans essential for correct collagen assembly

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Costimulation and endogenous MHC ligands contribute to T cell recognition.

To initiate an immune response, key receptor-ligand pairs must cluster in "immune synapses" at the T cell-antigen-presenting cell (APC) interface. We visualized the accumulation of a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecule, I-E(k), at a T cell-B cell interface and found it was dependent on both antigen recognition and costimulation. This suggests that costimulation-driven active transport of T cell surface molecules helps to drive immunological synapse formation. Although only agonist peptide-MHC class II (agonist pMHC class II) complexes can initiate T cell activation, endogenous pMHC class II complexes also appeared to accumulate. To test this directly, we labeled a "null" pMHC class II complex and found that, although it lacked major TCR contact residues, it could be driven into the synapse in a TCR-dependent manner. Thus, low-affinity ligands can contribute to synapse formation and T cell signaling

Costimulation and endogenous MHC ligands contribute to T cell recognition.

To initiate an immune response, key receptor-ligand pairs must cluster in "immune synapses" at the T cell-antigen-presenting cell (APC) interface. We visualized the accumulation of a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecule, I-E(k), at a T cell-B cell interface and found it was dependent on both antigen recognition and costimulation. This suggests that costimulation-driven active transport of T cell surface molecules helps to drive immunological synapse formation. Although only agonist peptide-MHC class II (agonist pMHC class II) complexes can initiate T cell activation, endogenous pMHC class II complexes also appeared to accumulate. To test this directly, we labeled a "null" pMHC class II complex and found that, although it lacked major TCR contact residues, it could be driven into the synapse in a TCR-dependent manner. Thus, low-affinity ligands can contribute to synapse formation and T cell signaling