Genome of Rhodnius prolixus, an insect vector of Chagas disease, reveals unique adaptations to hematophagy and parasite infection

Rhodnius prolixus not only has served as a model organism for the study of insect physiology, but also is a major vector of Chagas disease, an illness that affects approximately seven million people worldwide. We sequenced the genome of R. prolixus, generated assembled sequences covering 95% of the genome ( approximately 702 Mb), including 15,456 putative protein-coding genes, and completed comprehensive genomic analyses of this obligate blood-feeding insect. Although immune-deficiency (IMD)-mediated immune responses were observed, R. prolixus putatively lacks key components of the IMD pathway, suggesting a reorganization of the canonical immune signaling network. Although both Toll and IMD effectors controlled intestinal microbiota, neither affected Trypanosoma cruzi, the causal agent of Chagas disease, implying the existence of evasion or tolerance mechanisms. R. prolixus has experienced an extensive loss of selenoprotein genes, with its repertoire reduced to only two proteins, one of which is a selenocysteine-based glutathione peroxidase, the first found in insects. The genome contained actively transcribed, horizontally transferred genes from Wolbachia sp., which showed evidence of codon use evolution toward the insect use pattern. Comparative protein analyses revealed many lineage-specific expansions and putative gene absences in R. prolixus, including tandem expansions of genes related to chemoreception, feeding, and digestion that possibly contributed to the evolution of a blood-feeding lifestyle. The genome assembly and these associated analyses provide critical information on the physiology and evolution of this important vector species and should be instrumental for the development of innovative disease control methods

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Impact of culture media glucose levels on the intestinal uptake of organic cations

There are several data concerning transporters expression and/or regulation in cell lines maintained in different conditions, such as medium glucose concentration. This work aimed to evaluate the influence of two different extracellular glucose concentrations, commonly used in culture media, on the intestinal absorption of organic cations. Thus, the effect of 5.5 mM glucose and 25 mM glucose (HG) in culture media, was studied on [3H]-MPP+ (1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium iodide) uptake in Caco-2 cells. Expression of human organic cation transporter type 1 (hOCT1) and human organic cation transporter type 3 (hOCT3) was investigated in cells cultured at both glucose concentrations. [3H]-MPP+ uptake, as well as its affinity for the transporter, were significantly decreased in HG cells. Moreover, hOCT3 mRNA levels were reduced in HG cells. Functional confirmation of this result was made using hOCT3 inhibitors. In conclusion, maintenance of Caco-2 cells (commonly used in several in vitro studies on membrane transport) in HG conditions affects organic cation transport at the intestinal level. Hence, results obtained in these conditions must be analysed with great care, since extracellular glucose levels may originate changes in organic cation nutrient and drug bioavailability

Establishment and cryptic transmission of Zika virus in Brazil and the Americas

University of Oxford. Department of Zoology, Oxford, UK / Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.University of Birmingham. Institute of Microbiology and Infection. Birmingham, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK / Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA, USA / Boston Children's Hospital. Boston, MA, USA.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division. Seattle, WA, USA / University of Washington. Department of Epidemiology. Seattle, WA, USA.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.University of Oxford. Department of Statistics. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Institut Pasteur. Biostatistics and Integrative Biology. Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases and Center of Bioinformatics. Paris, FR / Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Paris, FR.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Ministry of Health. Coordenação dos Laboratórios de Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral de Vigilância e Resposta às Emergências em Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Center of Data and Knowledge Integration for Health. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. Brasilia, DF, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral dos Programas de Controle e Prevenção da Malária e das Doenças Transmitidas pelo Aedes. Brasília, DF, Brazil / Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Buenos Aires, AR.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral dos Programas de Controle e Prevenção da Malária e das Doenças Transmitidas pelo Aedes. Brasília, DF, Brazil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministry of Health. Coordenação Geral dos Programas de Controle e Prevenção da Malária e das Doenças Transmitidas pelo Aedes. Brasília, DF, BrazilMinistry of Health. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. Brasilia, DF, Brazil.Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. Toronto, ON, Canada.University of Nottingham. Nottingham, UKThe Scripps Research Institute. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science. La Jolla, CA, USA.The Scripps Research Institute. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science. La Jolla, CA, USA.University of California. Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine & Infectious Diseases. San Francisco, CA, USA.University of California. Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine & Infectious Diseases. San Francisco, CA, USA.Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. División de Laboratorios de Vigilancia e Investigación Epidemiológica. Ciudad de México, MC.Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. División de Laboratorios de Vigilancia e Investigación Epidemiológica. Ciudad de México, MC.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Biotecnología. Cuernavaca, MC.Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. Langen, Germany.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Natal, RN, Brazil / Universidade Potiguar. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Natal, RN, Brazil / Faculdade Natalense de Ensino e Cultura. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. João Pessoa, PB, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil / Colorado State University. Department of Microbiology, Immunology &Pathology. Fort Collins, CO, USA.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Heidelberg University Hospital. Department for Infectious Diseases. Section Clinical Tropical Medicine. Heidelberg, Germany.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Maceió, AL, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Maceió, AL, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Maceió, AL, Brazil.Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Amazonas. Manaus, AM, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Hospital São Francisco. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Tocantins. Palmas, TO, Brazil.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of Sydney. Sydney, Australia.University of Edinburgh. Institute of Evolutionary Biology. Edinburgh, UK / National Institutes of Health. Fogarty International Center. Bethesda, MD, USA.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division. Seattle, WA, USA.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil / University of Texas Medical Branch. Department of Pathology. Galveston, TX, USA.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.University of Birmingham. Institute of Microbiology and Infection. Birmingham, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Zoology, Oxford, UK / Metabiota. San Francisco, CA, USA.University of São Paulo. School of Medicine &Institute of Tropical Medicine. Department of Infectious Disease. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Salvador, BA, Brazil / University of Rome Tor Vergata. Rome, Italy.Transmission of Zika virus (ZIKV) in the Americas was first confirmed in May 2015 in northeast Brazil. Brazil has had the highest number of reported ZIKV cases worldwide (more than 200,000 by 24 December 2016) and the most cases associated with microcephaly and other birth defects (2,366 confirmed by 31 December 2016). Since the initial detection of ZIKV in Brazil, more than 45 countries in the Americas have reported local ZIKV transmission, with 24 of these reporting severe ZIKV-associated disease. However, the origin and epidemic history of ZIKV in Brazil and the Americas remain poorly understood, despite the value of this information for interpreting observed trends in reported microcephaly. Here we address this issue by generating 54 complete or partial ZIKV genomes, mostly from Brazil, and reporting data generated by a mobile genomics laboratory that travelled across northeast Brazil in 2016. One sequence represents the earliest confirmed ZIKV infection in Brazil. Analyses of viral genomes with ecological and epidemiological data yield an estimate that ZIKV was present in northeast Brazil by February 2014 and is likely to have disseminated from there, nationally and internationally, before the first detection of ZIKV in the Americas. Estimated dates for the international spread of ZIKV from Brazil indicate the duration of pre-detection cryptic transmission in recipient regions. The role of northeast Brazil in the establishment of ZIKV in the Americas is further supported by geographic analysis of ZIKV transmission potential and by estimates of the basic reproduction number of the virus