Retinal glycoprotein enrichment by concanavalin a enabled identification of novel membrane autoantigen synaptotagmin-1 in equine recurrent uveitis.

Complete knowledge of autoantigen spectra is crucial for understanding pathomechanisms of autoimmune diseases like equine recurrent uveitis (ERU), a spontaneous model for human autoimmune uveitis. While several ERU autoantigens were identified previously, no membrane protein was found so far. As there is a great overlap between glycoproteins and membrane proteins, the aim of this study was to test whether pre-enrichment of retinal glycoproteins by ConA affinity is an effective tool to detect autoantigen candidates among membrane proteins. In 1D Western blots, the glycoprotein preparation allowed detection of IgG reactions to low abundant proteins in sera of ERU patients. Synaptotagmin-1, a Ca2+-sensing protein in synaptic vesicles, was identified as autoantigen candidate from the pre-enriched glycoprotein fraction by mass spectrometry and was validated as a highly prevalent autoantigen by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Analysis of Syt1 expression in retinas of ERU cases showed a downregulation in the majority of ERU affected retinas to 24%. Results pointed to a dysregulation of retinal neurotransmitter release in ERU. Identification of synaptotagmin-1, the first cell membrane associated autoantigen in this spontaneous autoimmune disease, demonstrated that examination of tissue fractions can lead to the discovery of previously undetected novel autoantigens. Further experiments will address its role in ERU pathology

Loss of the Synaptic Vesicle Protein SV2B Results in Reduced Neurotransmission and Altered Synaptic Vesicle Protein Expression in the Retina

The Synaptic Vesicle Protein 2 (SV2) family of transporter-like proteins is expressed exclusively in vesicles that undergo calcium-regulated exocytosis. Of the three isoforms expressed in mammals, SV2B is the most divergent. Here we report studies of SV2B location and function in the retina. Immunolabeling studies revealed that SV2B is detected in rod photoreceptor synaptic terminals where it is the primary isoform. In mice lacking SV2B, synaptic transmission at the synapse between photoreceptors and bipolar neurons was decreased, as evidenced by a significant reduction in the amplitude of the b-wave in electroretinogram recordings. Quantitative immunoblot analyses of whole eyes revealed that loss of SV2B was associated with reduced levels of synaptic vesicle proteins including synaptotagmin, VAMP, synaptophysin and the vesicular glutamate transporter V-GLUT1. Immunolabeling studies revealed that SV2B is detected in rod photoreceptor synaptic terminals where it is the primary isoform. Thus, SV2B contributes to the modulation of synaptic vesicle exocytosis and plays a significant role in regulating synaptic protein content

The Drosophila Anion Exchanger (DAE) lacks a detectable interaction with the spectrin cytoskeleton

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current models suggest that the spectrin cytoskeleton stabilizes interacting ion transport proteins at the plasma membrane. The human erythrocyte anion exchanger (AE1) was the first membrane transport protein found to be associated with the spectrin cytoskeleton. Here we evaluated a conserved anion exchanger from Drosophila (DAE) as a marker for studies of the downstream effects of spectrin cytoskeleton mutations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sequence comparisons established that DAE belongs to the SLC4A1-3 subfamily of anion exchangers that includes human AE1. Striking sequence conservation was observed in the C-terminal membrane transport domain and parts of the N-terminal cytoplasmic domain, but not in the proposed ankyrin-binding site. Using an antibody raised against DAE and a recombinant transgene expressed in <it>Drosophila </it>S2 cells DAE was shown to be a 136 kd plasma membrane protein. A major site of expression was found in the stomach acid-secreting region of the larval midgut. DAE codistributed with an infolded subcompartment of the basal plasma membrane of interstitial cells. However, spectrin did not codistribute with DAE at this site or in anterior midgut cells that abundantly expressed both spectrin and DAE. Ubiquitous knockdown of DAE with dsRNA eliminated antibody staining and was lethal, indicating that DAE is an essential gene product in <it>Drosophila</it>.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on the lack of colocalization and the lack of sequence conservation at the ankyrin-binding site, it appears that the well-characterized interaction between AE1 and the spectrin cytoskeleton in erythrocytes is not conserved in <it>Drosophila</it>. The results establish a pattern in which most of the known interactions between the spectrin cytoskeleton and the plasma membrane in mammals do not appear to be conserved in <it>Drosophila</it>.</p

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial

PURPOSE: Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices. METHODS: A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints. RESULTS: Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Many novel therapies are available for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), some of which convey substantial progression-free survival and overall survival benefits. Delaying disease progression and providing palliation of symptoms are primary therapeutic aims of treating patients with mCRPC; therefore, ensuring that the benefit-to-harm ratios are acceptable to patients, through systematic measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using validated tools, is vital. In this Perspectives, we appraised the published reports from clinical trials testing treatments of mCRPC over the past 5 years and found that PROs were either not being measured routinely, or if used, were often not reported adequately, thus hampering evaluation of the true effects of many of these treatments on patients' quality of life. Improvements are needed because data collected directly from patients, not just physician-collected safety data and adverse events, are crucial to inform clinical decision-making on treatment options

International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Set of Outcomes That Matter to People Living With Inflammatory Arthritis: Consensus From an International Working Group

© 2018, The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology. Objective: The implementation of value-based health care in inflammatory arthritis requires a standardized set of modifiable outcomes and risk-adjustment variables that is feasible to implement worldwide. Methods: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary working group that consisted of 24 experts from 6 continents, including 6 patient representatives, to develop a standard set of outcomes for inflammatory arthritis. The process followed a structured approach, using a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the following decision areas: conditions covered by the set, outcome domains, outcome measures, and risk-adjustment variables. Consensus in areas 2 to 4 were supported by systematic literature reviews and consultation of experts. Results: The ICHOM Inflammatory Arthritis Standard Set covers patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We recommend that outcomes regarding pain, fatigue, activity limitations, overall physical and mental health impact, work/school/housework ability and productivity, disease activity, and serious adverse events be collected at least annually. Validated measures for patient-reported outcomes were endorsed and linked to common reporting metrics. Age, sex at birth, education level, smoking status, comorbidities, time since diagnosis, and rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody lab testing for RA and JIA should be collected as risk-adjustment variables. Conclusion: We present the ICHOM inflammatory arthritis Standard Set of outcomes, which enables health care providers to implement the value-based health care framework and compare outcomes that are important to patients with inflammatory arthritis

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019.

Background Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.Objective To present the results from the APCCC 2019.Design, setting, and participants Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.Results and limitations Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.Conclusions These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.Patient summary The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making