Pox proteomics: mass spectrometry analysis and identification of Vaccinia virion proteins

BACKGROUND: Although many vaccinia virus proteins have been identified and studied in detail, only a few studies have attempted a comprehensive survey of the protein composition of the vaccinia virion. These projects have identified the major proteins of the vaccinia virion, but little has been accomplished to identify the unknown or less abundant proteins. Obtaining a detailed knowledge of the viral proteome of vaccinia virus will be important for advancing our understanding of orthopoxvirus biology, and should facilitate the development of effective antiviral drugs and formulation of vaccines. RESULTS: In order to accomplish this task, purified vaccinia virions were fractionated into a soluble protein enriched fraction (membrane proteins and lateral bodies) and an insoluble protein enriched fraction (virion cores). Each of these fractions was subjected to further fractionation by either sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electophoresis, or by reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography. The soluble and insoluble fractions were also analyzed directly with no further separation. The samples were prepared for mass spectrometry analysis by digestion with trypsin. Tryptic digests were analyzed by using either a matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time of flight tandem mass spectrometer, a quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer, or a quadrupole-time of flight mass spectrometer (the latter two instruments were equipped with electrospray ionization sources). Proteins were identified by searching uninterpreted tandem mass spectra against a vaccinia virus protein database created by our lab and a non-redundant protein database. CONCLUSION: Sixty three vaccinia proteins were identified in the virion particle. The total number of peptides found for each protein ranged from 1 to 62, and the sequence coverage of the proteins ranged from 8.2% to 94.9%. Interestingly, two vaccinia open reading frames were confirmed as being expressed as novel proteins: E6R and L3L

Antigenic, Immunologic and Genetic Characterization of Rough Strains B.abortus RB51, B.melitensis B115 and B.melitensis B18

The lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is considered the major virulent factor in Brucella spp. Several genes have been identified involved in the synthesis of the three LPS components: lipid A, core and O-PS. Usually, Brucella strains devoid of O-PS (rough mutants) are less virulent than the wild type and do not induce undesirable interfering antibodies. Such of them proved to be protective against brucellosis in mice. Because of these favorable features, rough strains have been considered potential brucellosis vaccines. In this study, we evaluated the antigenic, immunologic and genetic characteristics of rough strains B.abortus RB51, B.melitensis B115 and B.melitensis B18. RB51 derived from B.abortus 2308 virulent strain and B115 is a natural rough strain in which the O-PS is present in the cytoplasm. B18 is a rough rifampin-resistan mutant isolated in our laboratory

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for endoscopic mucosal resection: a randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). SIC-8000 (Eleview, Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available FDA approved solution but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 to hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. Methods This was a single-center double-blinded randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney Resection Quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. Results There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (84 SIC-8000 and 75 hetastarch) and 57 serrated lesions (30 SIC-8000 and 27 hetastarch). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, p=0.001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, p=0.038) Conclusions SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims Endocuff and Endocuff Vision are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE is a knock-off device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. Methods We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. Results The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision; p=0.535. The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (p=0.008). There was no difference between the arms in mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, p=0.042). Conclusions AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision of which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE to Endocuff by other investigators are warranted

High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus Full-Spectrum Endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial

Background Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. Methods We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) Results Among 1,188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC Mean ± SD 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96,) (p<0.001 for APC). Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy for APC (p=0.014) . Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds) (p=0.006 and 0.018, respectively). Conclusions For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope

Impact of a ring fitted cap on insertion time and adenoma detection: a randomized controlled trial

Background and Aims: Devices for flattening colon folds can improve polyp detection at colonoscopy. However, there are few data on the endoscopic ring fitted cap (EndoRings, EndoAid, Caesarea, Israel). We sought to compare adenoma detection with EndoRings with that of standard high-definition colonoscopy. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial of 562 patients (284 randomized to EndoRings and 278 to standard colonoscopy) at 2 outpatient endoscopy units in the Indiana University Hospital system. Adenoma detection was the primary outcome measured as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). We also compared sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), insertion times, withdrawal times, and ease of passage through the sigmoid colon. Results: EndoRings was superior to standard colonoscopy in terms of APC (1.46 vs 1.06, p=0.025) but there were no statistically significant differences in ADR or SSPDR. Mean withdrawal time (in patients with no polyps) was shorter and insertion time (all patients) was longer in the EndoRings arm by 1.8 minutes and 0.75 minutes, respectively. One provider had significantly higher detection with EndoRings and contributed substantially to the overall results. Conclusions: EndoRings can increase adenoma detection without significant increase in procedure time, but the effect varies between operators. EndoRings slows colonoscope insertion

Narrow-band Imaging for Detection of Neoplasia at Colonoscopy: a Meta-analysis of Data From Individual Patients in Randomized Controlled Trials

Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality assurance measure for colonoscopy. Some studies suggest that narrow band imaging (NBI) may be more effective at detection of adenomas than white-light endoscopy (WLE) when bowel preparation is optimal. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of NBI to WLE in detection of adenomas. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, through April 2017, for randomized controlled trials that assessed detection of colon polyps by high-definition WLE vs NBI and from which data on individual patients was available. The primary outcome measure was ADR adjusted for bowel preparation quality. Multilevel regression models were used with patients nested within trials, and trial included as a random effect. Results We collected data from 11 trials, comprising 4491 patients and 6636 polyps detected. Adenomas were detected in 952/2251 (42.3%) participants examined by WLE vs 1011/2239 (45.2%) participants examined by NBI (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] for detection of adenoma by WLE vs NBI, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29; P=.04). NBI outperformed WLE only when bowel preparation was best: adequate preparation OR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.24; P=.38) vs best preparation OR, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04–1.62; P=.02). Second-generation bright NBI had a better ADR than WLE (second-generation NBI OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.56; P=.02), whereas first-generation NBI did not. NBI detected more non-adenomatous polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06–1.44; P=.008) and flat polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.51; P=.03). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials, we found NBI to have a higher ADR than WLE, and that this effect is greater when bowel preparation is optimal

Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium Definitions for Tricuspid Regurgitation and Trial Endpoints.

Interest in the pathophysiology, etiology, management, and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has grown in the wake of multiple natural history studies showing progressively worse outcomes associated with increasing TR severity, even after adjusting for multiple comorbidities. Historically, isolated tricuspid valve surgery has been associated with high in-hospital mortality rates, leading to the development of transcatheter treatment options. The aim of this first Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document is to standardize definitions of disease etiology and severity, as well as endpoints for trials that aim to address the gaps in our knowledge related to identification and management of patients with TR. Standardizing endpoints for trials should provide consistency and enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. A second Tricuspid Valve Academic Research Consortium document will focus on further defining trial endpoints and will discuss trial design options