Author Correction: iLoF: An intelligent Lab on Fiber Approach for Human Cancer Single-Cell Type Identification

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.This work was partially funded by the projects NanoSTIMA and NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000029, both supported by the North Portugal Regional Operational Program (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, and through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); and by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, within the scope of the PhD grant PD/BD/135023/2017 and the projects: PTDC/BBB-EBI/0567/2014 (to CAR) and UID/BIM/04293/2013. It was also funded by FEDER funds through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors-COMPETE (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016585; POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007274; PPBI-POCI-01-0145-FEDER-022122). MB acknowledges the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 748880

Angiotensin-(1-7) and angiotensin-(1-9): function in cardiac and vascular remodeling

The renin angiotensin system (RAS) is integral to cardiovascular physiology, however, dysregulation of this system largely contributes to the pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is well established that angiotensin II (Ang II), the main effector of the RAS, engages the angiotensin type 1 receptor and promotes cell growth, proliferation, migration and oxidative stress, all processes which contribute to remodeling of the heart and vasculature, ultimately leading to the development and progression of various CVDs including heart failure and atherosclerosis. The counter-regulatory axis of the RAS, which is centered on the actions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and the resultant production of angiotensin-(1-7) (Ang-(1-7) from Ang II, antagonizes the actions of Ang II via the receptor Mas, thereby providing a protective role in CVD. More recently, another ACE2 metabolite, Ang-(1-9), has been reported to be a biologically active peptide within the counter-regulatory axis of the RAS. This review will discuss the role of the counter-regulatory RAS peptides, Ang-(1-7) and Ang-(1-9) in the cardiovascular system, with a focus on their effects in remodeling of the heart and vasculature

Lecithin : cholesterol acyltransferase: symposium on 50 years of biomedical research from its discovery to latest findings

LCAT converts free cholesterol to cholesteryl esters in the process of reverse cholesterol transport. Familial LCAT deficiency (FLD) is a genetic disease that was first described by Kaare R. Norum and Egil Gjone in 1967. This report is a summary from a 2017 symposium where Dr. Norum recounted the history of FLD and leading experts on LCAT shared their results. The Tesmer laboratory shared structural findings on LCAT and the close homolog, lysosomal phospholipase A2. Results from studies of FLD patients in Finland, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were presented, as well as the status of a patient registry. Drs. Kuivenhoven and Calabresi presented data from carriers of genetic mutations suggesting that FLD does not necessarily accelerate atherosclerosis. Dr. Ng shared that LCAT-null mice were protected from diet-induced obesity, insulin resistance, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Dr. Zhou presented multiple innovations for increasing LCAT activity for therapeutic purposes, whereas Dr. Remaley showed results from treatment of an FLD patient with recombinant human LCAT (rhLCAT). Dr. Karathanasis showed that rhLCAT infusion in mice stimulates cholesterol efflux and suggested that it could also enhance cholesterol efflux from macrophages. While the role of LCAT in atherosclerosis remains elusive, the consensus is that a continued study of both the enzyme and disease will lead toward better treatments for patients with heart disease and FLD.Peer reviewe

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; Iand#178; = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; Iand#178; = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; Iand#178; = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.</p

The Chemotactic Defect in Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Macrophages Is Due to the Reduced Persistence of Directional Protrusions

Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein (WASp) is an actin nucleation promoting factor that is required for macrophages to directionally migrate towards various chemoattractants. The chemotaxis defect of WASp-deficient cells and its activation by Cdc42 in vivo suggest that WASp plays a role in directional sensing, however, its precise role in macrophage chemotaxis is still unclear. Using shRNA-mediated downregulation of WASp in the murine monocyte/macrophage cell line RAW/LR5 (shWASp), we found that WASp was responsible for the initial wave of actin polymerization in response to global stimulation with CSF-1, which in Dictyostelium discoideum amoebae and carcinoma cells has been correlated with the ability to migrate towards chemoattractants. Real-time monitoring of shWASp cells, as well as WASp−/− bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs), in response to a CSF-1 gradient revealed that the protrusions from WASp-deficient cells were directional, showing intact directional sensing. However, the protrusions from WASp-deficient cells demonstrated reduced persistence compared to their respective control shRNA and wild-type cells. Further examination showed that tyrosine phosphorylation of WASp was required for both the first wave of actin polymerization following global CSF-1 stimulation and proper directional responses towards CSF-1. Importantly, the PI3K, Rac1 and WAVE2 proteins were incorporated normally in CSF-1 – elicited protrusions in the absence of WASp, suggesting that membrane protrusion driven by the WAVE2 complex signaling is intact. Collectively, these results suggest that WASp and its phosphorylation play critical roles in coordinating the actin cytoskeleton rearrangements necessary for the persistence of protrusions required for directional migration of macrophages towards CSF-1

Emergent properties of neural repair: elemental biology to therapeutic concepts

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137471/1/ana24653_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137471/2/ana24653.pd