The Aquaporin Gene Family of the Yellow Fever Mosquito, Aedes aegypti

The mosquito, Aedes aegypti, is the principal vector of the Dengue and yellow fever viruses. During feeding, an adult female can take up more than its own body weight in vertebrate blood. After a blood meal females excrete large amounts of urine through their excretion system, the Malpighian tubules (MT). Diuresis starts within seconds after the mosquito starts feeding. Aquaporins (AQPs) are a family of membrane transporters that regulate the flow of water, glycerol and other small molecules across cellular membranes in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Our aim was to identify aquaporins that function as water channels, mediating transcellular water transport in MTs of adult female Ae. aegypti.Using a bioinformatics approach we screened genome databases and identified six putative AQPs in the genome of Ae. aegypti. Phylogenetic analysis showed that five of the six Ae. aegypti AQPs have high similarity to classical water-transporting AQPs of vertebrates. Using microarray, reverse transcription and real time PCR analysis we found that all six AQPs are expressed in distinct patterns in mosquito tissues/body parts. AaAQP1, 4, and 5 are strongly expressed in the adult female MT. RNAi-mediated knockdown of the MT-expressed mosquito AQPs resulted in significantly reduced diuresis.Our results support the notion that AQP1, 4, and 5 function as water transporters in the MTs of adult female Ae. aegypti mosquitoes. Our results demonstrate the importance of these AQPs for mosquito diuresis after blood ingestion and highlight their potential as targets for the development of novel vector control strategies

Comparative effectiveness of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant vs fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Importance: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) is available for treatment of highly active multiple sclerosis (MS). Objective: To compare the effectiveness of AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS by emulating pairwise trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative treatment effectiveness study included 6 specialist MS centers with AHSCT programs and international MSBase registry between 2006 and 2021. The study included patients with relapsing-remitting MS treated with AHSCT, fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab with 2 or more years study follow-up including 2 or more disability assessments. Patients were matched on a propensity score derived from clinical and demographic characteristics. Exposure: AHSCT vs fingolimod, natalizumab, or ocrelizumab. Main outcomes: Pairwise-censored groups were compared on annualized relapse rates (ARR) and freedom from relapses and 6-month confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score worsening and improvement. Results: Of 4915 individuals, 167 were treated with AHSCT; 2558, fingolimod; 1490, natalizumab; and 700, ocrelizumab. The prematch AHSCT cohort was younger and with greater disability than the fingolimod, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab cohorts; the matched groups were closely aligned. The proportion of women ranged from 65% to 70%, and the mean (SD) age ranged from 35.3 (9.4) to 37.1 (10.6) years. The mean (SD) disease duration ranged from 7.9 (5.6) to 8.7 (5.4) years, EDSS score ranged from 3.5 (1.6) to 3.9 (1.9), and frequency of relapses ranged from 0.77 (0.94) to 0.86 (0.89) in the preceding year. Compared with the fingolimod group (769 [30.0%]), AHSCT (144 [86.2%]) was associated with fewer relapses (ARR: mean [SD], 0.09 [0.30] vs 0.20 [0.44]), similar risk of disability worsening (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.91-3.17), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.71-4.26) over 5 years. Compared with natalizumab (730 [49.0%]), AHSCT (146 [87.4%]) was associated with marginally lower ARR (mean [SD], 0.08 [0.31] vs 0.10 [0.34]), similar risk of disability worsening (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.54-2.09), and higher chance of disability improvement (HR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.72-4.18) over 5 years. AHSCT (110 [65.9%]) and ocrelizumab (343 [49.0%]) were associated with similar ARR (mean [SD], 0.09 [0.34] vs 0.06 [0.32]), disability worsening (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.61-5.08), and disability improvement (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.66-2.82) over 3 years. AHSCT-related mortality occurred in 1 of 159 patients (0.6%). Conclusion: In this study, the association of AHSCT with preventing relapses and facilitating recovery from disability was considerably superior to fingolimod and marginally superior to natalizumab. This study did not find evidence for difference in the effectiveness of AHSCT and ocrelizumab over a shorter available follow-up time

Who recognises technical standards in TTIP?

Current political discussions on the relationship of technical standards to the Transatlantic, Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) concern the question whether TTIP can provide a transatlantic level playing field for technical standards, and whether this will negatively affect technical standards in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). This piece will instead take a different view on technical standards in TTIP. It will switch the perspective to an individual one, namely to the question who decides on standards. It follows the hypothesis that steering principles on mutual recognition and harmonization of technical standards largely depend on who will be given the power to decide on conformity and level of technical standards in the TTIP. As a basis for such an institutional analysis, this piece will evaluate the leaked documents from the TTIP negotiations. The analysis follows the framework for legal institutional analysis identified in the introduction to this book. The introduction highlights that, as legal applications of regime theory and organisation theory, the acts of autonomy and power by institutions are the real subjects of legal investigation of institutionalisation. This largely reflects an approach to institutionalism voiced by Neil Komesar in the 1990ies. As a result, I will identify and map the respective decision-makers and will illustrate the potential impact of these choices on technical standard-setting