The Evolutionary History of The Orexin/Allatotropin GPCR Family: From Placozoa and Cnidaria to Vertebrata

Peptidic messengers constitute a highly diversified group of intercellular messengers widely distributedin nature that regulate a great number of physiological processes in Metazoa. Being crucial for life, itseem that they have appeared in the ancestral group from which Metazoa evolved, and were highlyconserved along the evolutionary process. Peptides act mainly through G-protein coupled receptors(GPCRs), a family of transmembrane molecules. GPCRs are also widely distributed in nature beingpresent in metazoan, but also in Choanoflagellata and Fungi. Among GPCRs, the Allatotropin/Orexin(AT/Ox) family is particularly characterized by the presence of the DRW motif in the second intracellularloop (IC Loop 2), and seems to be present in Cnidaria, Placozoa and in Bilateria, suggesting that it waspresent in the common ancestor of Metazoa. Looking for the evolutionary history of this GPCRs wesearched for corresponding sequences in public databases. Our results suggest that AT/Ox receptorswere highly conserved along evolutionary process, and that they are characterized by the presenceof the E/DRWYAI motif at the IC Loop 2. Phylogenetic analyses show that AT/Ox family of receptorsreflects evolutionary relationships that agree with current phylogenetic understanding in Actinopterygiiand Sauropsida, including also the largely discussed position of TestudinesFil: Alzugaray, Maria Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Cátedra de Histología y Embriología Animal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Bruno, María Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Cátedra de Histología y Embriología Animal; ArgentinaFil: Villalobos Sambucaro, María José. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Cátedra de Histología y Embriología Animal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Ronderos, Jorge Rafael. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Cátedra de Histología y Embriología Animal; Argentin

The Evolutionary History of The Orexin/Allatotropin GPCR Family : From Placozoa and Cnidaria to Vertebrata

Peptidic messengers constitute a highly diversifed group of intercellular messengers widely distributed in nature that regulate a great number of physiological processes in Metazoa. Being crucial for life, it seem that they have appeared in the ancestral group from which Metazoa evolved, and were highly conserved along the evolutionary process. Peptides act mainly through G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), a family of transmembrane molecules. GPCRs are also widely distributed in nature being present in metazoan, but also in Choanofagellata and Fungi. Among GPCRs, the Allatotropin/Orexin (AT/Ox) family is particularly characterized by the presence of the DRW motif in the second intracellular loop (IC Loop 2), and seems to be present in Cnidaria, Placozoa and in Bilateria, suggesting that it was present in the common ancestor of Metazoa. Looking for the evolutionary history of this GPCRs we searched for corresponding sequences in public databases. Our results suggest that AT/Ox receptors were highly conserved along evolutionary process, and that they are characterized by the presence of the E/DRWYAI motif at the IC Loop 2. Phylogenetic analyses show that AT/Ox family of receptors refects evolutionary relationships that agree with current phylogenetic understanding in Actinopterygii and Sauropsida, including also the largely discussed position of Testudines.Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Muse

Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch can be predicted and is associated with early prosthetic valve dysfunction in aortic bioprosthesis

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) regarding actual PPM measured postoperatively. To assess the association between PPM and prosthetic valve dysfunction. Methods: Retrospective cohort study including adult patients after aortic valve replacement surgery with a biological prosthesis. Predicted PPM status was determined using mean reference effective orifice area indexed to total body surface (iEOA), without considering reference standard deviations. Postoperative PPM status was determined by measuring iEOA within the first 60 postoperative days. Prosthetic valve dysfunction was defined as thrombosis, pannus, valve degeneration, and/or disruption. Results: 205 patients were enrolled between January 2003 and June 2017: predicted PPM was absent in 52 patients (25.4%), moderate in 137 patients (66.8%), and severe in 16 patients (7.8%). After surgery, the actual postoperative iEOA was measured: 53 (25.9%) did not have PPM, 73 had moderate PPM (35.6%), and 79 had severe PPM (38.5%). Predicted PPM identified the presence of hemodynamically significant actual postoperative PPM (OR = 2.56; 95%CI 1.30–5.05; P =.006), though not its degree of severity. Prosthetic valve dysfunction was more frequent among patients with hemodynamically significant PPM (53.9% vs. 11.3%; P <.001), compared to those without PPM. The association between PPM and prosthetic valve dysfunction was maintained after adjusting for gender, age, and ever-smoking (OR = 9.03; P <.001). The incidence of thrombosis or pannus was also nonsignificantly higher in patients with moderate or severe PPM. Conclusions: Predicted PPM identifies the presence, possibly not the severity, of actual postoperative PPM. Moderate or severe PPM is associated with prosthetic valve dysfunction. Actual postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch measured within 60 postoperative days showed a distinctive hemodynamic profile and presented a stronger association with prosthetic valve dysfunction than predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch. A. Echocardiographic follow-up in patients according to the actual postoperative PPM measured within 60 postoperative days. B. Prediction of prosthetic valve dysfunction based on preoperative predicted PPM or on actual postoperative PPM within 60 postoperative days. PPM: prosthesis-patient mismatch. OR: Odds ratio.Fil: Ronderos, Ricardo. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Politi, Teresa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Fisiología y Biofísica Bernardo Houssay. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Fisiología y Biofísica Bernardo Houssay; ArgentinaFil: Mahia, Mariana Cecilia. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Castro, María Florencia. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Sciancalepore, Agustina. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Cueva Torres, Franklin. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Kuschnir, Paola. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: de la Paz Ricapito, María. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Vrancic, Juan Mariano. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Camporrotondo, Mariano. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Piccinini, Fernando. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Navia, Daniel. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; Argentin

Hemodynamically significant prosthesis-patient mismatch can be predicted and is associated with early prosthetic valve dysfunction in aortic bioprosthesis

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) regarding actual PPM measured postoperatively. To assess the association between PPM and prosthetic valve dysfunction. Methods: Retrospective cohort study including adult patients after aortic valve replacement surgery with a biological prosthesis. Predicted PPM status was determined using mean reference effective orifice area indexed to total body surface (iEOA), without considering reference standard deviations. Postoperative PPM status was determined by measuring iEOA within the first 60 postoperative days. Prosthetic valve dysfunction was defined as thrombosis, pannus, valve degeneration, and/or disruption. Results: 205 patients were enrolled between January 2003 and June 2017: predicted PPM was absent in 52 patients (25.4%), moderate in 137 patients (66.8%), and severe in 16 patients (7.8%). After surgery, the actual postoperative iEOA was measured: 53 (25.9%) did not have PPM, 73 had moderate PPM (35.6%), and 79 had severe PPM (38.5%). Predicted PPM identified the presence of hemodynamically significant actual postoperative PPM (OR = 2.56; 95%CI 1.30–5.05; P =.006), though not its degree of severity. Prosthetic valve dysfunction was more frequent among patients with hemodynamically significant PPM (53.9% vs. 11.3%; P <.001), compared to those without PPM. The association between PPM and prosthetic valve dysfunction was maintained after adjusting for gender, age, and ever-smoking (OR = 9.03; P <.001). The incidence of thrombosis or pannus was also nonsignificantly higher in patients with moderate or severe PPM. Conclusions: Predicted PPM identifies the presence, possibly not the severity, of actual postoperative PPM. Moderate or severe PPM is associated with prosthetic valve dysfunction. Actual postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch measured within 60 postoperative days showed a distinctive hemodynamic profile and presented a stronger association with prosthetic valve dysfunction than predicted prosthesis-patient mismatch. A. Echocardiographic follow-up in patients according to the actual postoperative PPM measured within 60 postoperative days. B. Prediction of prosthetic valve dysfunction based on preoperative predicted PPM or on actual postoperative PPM within 60 postoperative days. PPM: prosthesis-patient mismatch. OR: Odds ratio.Fil: Ronderos, Ricardo. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Politi, Teresa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Fisiología y Biofísica Bernardo Houssay. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Fisiología y Biofísica Bernardo Houssay; ArgentinaFil: Mahia, Mariana Cecilia. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Castro, María Florencia. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Sciancalepore, Agustina. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Cueva Torres, Franklin. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Kuschnir, Paola. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: de la Paz Ricapito, María. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Vrancic, Juan Mariano. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Camporrotondo, Mariano. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Piccinini, Fernando. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Navia, Daniel. Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires; Argentin