Edwardsiella Comparative Phylogenomics Reveal the New Intra/Inter-Species Taxonomic Relationships, Virulence Evolution and Niche Adaptation Mechanisms

Edwardsiella bacteria are leading fish pathogens causing huge losses to aquaculture industries worldwide. E. tarda is a broad-host range pathogen that infects more than 20 species of fish and other animals including humans while E. ictaluri is host-adapted to channel catfish causing enteric septicemia of catfish (ESC). Thus, these two species consist of a useful comparative system for studying the intricacies of pathogen evolution. Here we present for the first time the phylogenomic comparisons of 8 genomes of E. tarda and E. ictaluri isolates. Genome-based phylogenetic analysis revealed that E. tarda could be separate into two kinds of genotypes (genotype I, EdwGI and genotype II, EdwGII) based on the sequence similarity. E. tarda strains of EdwGI were clustered together with the E. ictaluri lineage and showed low sequence conservation to E. tarda strains of EdwGII. Multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) of 48 distinct Edwardsiella strains also supports the new taxonomic relationship of the lineages. We identified the type III and VI secretion systems (T3SS and T6SS) as well as iron scavenging related genes that fulfilled the criteria of a key evolutionary factor likely facilitating the virulence evolution and adaptation to a broad range of hosts in EdwGI E. tarda. The surface structure-related genes may underlie the adaptive evolution of E. ictaluri in the host specification processes. Virulence and competition assays of the null mutants of the representative genes experimentally confirmed their contributive roles in the evolution/niche adaptive processes. We also reconstructed the hypothetical evolutionary pathway to highlight the virulence evolution and niche adaptation mechanisms of Edwardsiella. This study may facilitate the development of diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics for this under-studied pathogen

Joining S100 proteins and migration:for better or for worse, in sickness and in health

The vast diversity of S100 proteins has demonstrated a multitude of biological correlations with cell growth, cell differentiation and cell survival in numerous physiological and pathological conditions in all cells of the body. This review summarises some of the reported regulatory functions of S100 proteins (namely S100A1, S100A2, S100A4, S100A6, S100A7, S100A8/S100A9, S100A10, S100A11, S100A12, S100B and S100P) on cellular migration and invasion, established in both culture and animal model systems and the possible mechanisms that have been proposed to be responsible. These mechanisms involve intracellular events and components of the cytoskeletal organisation (actin/myosin filaments, intermediate filaments and microtubules) as well as extracellular signalling at different cell surface receptors (RAGE and integrins). Finally, we shall attempt to demonstrate how aberrant expression of the S100 proteins may lead to pathological events and human disorders and furthermore provide a rationale to possibly explain why the expression of some of the S100 proteins (mainly S100A4 and S100P) has led to conflicting results on motility, depending on the cells used. © 2013 Springer Basel

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)