Corticosterone pattern-dependent glucocorticoid receptor binding and transcriptional regulation within the liver

Ultradian glucocorticoid rhythms are highly conserved across mammalian species, however, their functional significance is not yet fully understood. Here we demonstrate that pulsatile corticosterone replacement in adrenalectomised rats induces a dynamic pattern of glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding at ~3,000 genomic sites in liver at the pulse peak, subsequently not found during the pulse nadir. In contrast, constant corticosterone replacement induced prolonged binding at the majority of these sites. Additionally, each pattern further induced markedly different transcriptional responses. During pulsatile treatment, intragenic occupancy by active RNA polymerase II exhibited pulsatile dynamics with transient changes in enrichment, either decreased or increased depending on the gene, which mostly returned to baseline during the inter-pulse interval. In contrast, constant corticosterone exposure induced prolonged effects on RNA polymerase II occupancy at the majority of gene targets, thus acting as a sustained regulatory signal for both transactivation and repression of glucocorticoid target genes. The nett effect of these differences were consequently seen in the liver transcriptome as RNA-seq analysis indicated that despite the same overall amount of corticosterone infused, twice the number of transcripts were regulated by constant corticosterone infusion, when compared to pulsatile. Target genes that were found to be differentially regulated in a pattern-dependent manner were enriched in functional pathways including carbohydrate, cholesterol, glucose and fat metabolism as well as inflammation, suggesting a functional role for dysregulated glucocorticoid rhythms in the development of metabolic dysfunction

Prospectus, September 10, 1980

ARE YOU A \u27REAL STUDENT\u27?; Parkland People; Gamut challenges you; Emergency course offered; Oops!; Stugo hopefuls list qualifications; Kinks wow U of I fans; Coates announces student audtions; Country music is moving up; Women\u27s Program offers self-series; Classifieds; Students are....well, just students; Student disappointed; Correction; Science You Can See: Ask not what Cable T.V. can do for you, ask what you can do for Cable T.V.; B-ball deadline is Sept. 22; Football and tennis are IM openers; PC Datebook; Golfers begin season with win over Danville; After some surprises last week, Fast Freddy is ready; LaBadie confident of his runners; Fast Freddy Contest; Bench Warmer: Cobras show talenthttps://spark.parkland.edu/prospectus_1980/1022/thumbnail.jp

Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases: subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial

Background Findings from the RESTART trial suggest that starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. Brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases (such as cerebral microbleeds) are associated with greater risks of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. We did subgroup analyses of the RESTART trial to explore whether these brain imaging features modify the effects of antiplatelet therapy

CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet thereis little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments inchildren. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicineand the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them.Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possibleto achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying childrenwho might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representingten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatricsand child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland,New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing onthis topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a sevenpointscale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the firsttwo authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus.The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation(round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percentfor 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their responsewith written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resultingconsensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and aconcluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.</p

The glutathione redox system is essential to prevent ferroptosis caused by impaired lipid metabolism in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Oncogene. 2018 Oct;37(40):5435-5450. doi: 10.1038/s41388-018-0315-z. Epub 2018 Jun 5. Non-commercial use onlyThis study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the German Research Foundation (FOR2314) and the German Cancer Aid (111917)

Development of a World Health Organization International Reference Panel for different genotypes of hepatitis E virus for nucleic acid amplification testing.

Globally, hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis. Epidemiology and clinical presentation of hepatitis E vary greatly by location and are affected by the HEV genotype. Nucleic acid amplification technique (NAT)-based assays are important for the detection of acute HEV infection as well for monitoring chronic cases of hepatitis E. The aim of the study was to evaluate a panel of samples containing different genotypes of HEV for use in nucleic NAT-based assays. The panel of samples comprises eleven different members including HEV genotype 1a (2 strains), 1e, 2a, 3b, 3c, 3e, 3f, 4c, 4g as well as a human isolate related to rabbit HEV. Each laboratory assayed the panel members directly against the 1 World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) for HEV RNA (6329/10) which is based upon a genotype 3 a strain. The samples for evaluation were distributed to 24 laboratories from 14 different countries and assayed on three separate days. Of these, 23 participating laboratories returned a total of 32 sets of data; 17 from quantitative assays and 15 from qualitative assays. The assays used consisted of a mixture of in-house developed and commercially available assays. The results showed that all samples were detected consistently by the majority of participants, although in some cases, some samples were detected less efficiently. Based on the results of the collaborative study the panel (code number 8578/13) was established as the "1st International Reference Panel (IRP) for all HEV genotypes for NAT-based assays" by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. This IRP will be important for assay validation and ensuring adequate detection of different genotypes and clinically important sub-genotypes of HEV

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p &lt; 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p &lt; 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p &lt; 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p &lt; 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p &lt; 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p &lt; 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p &lt; 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p &lt; 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure