An optimized method for cryogenic storage of <i>Xenopus </i>sperm to maximise the effectiveness of research using genetically altered frogs

© The Author(s), 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Theriogenology 92 (2017): 149–155, doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.01.007.Cryogenic storage of sperm from genetically altered Xenopus improves cost effectiveness and animal welfare associated with their use in research; currently it is routine for X. tropicalis but not reliable for X. laevis. Here we compare directly the three published protocols for Xenopus sperm freeze-thaw and determine whether sperm storage temperature, method of testes maceration and delays in the freezing protocols affect successful fertilisation and embryo development in X. laevis. We conclude that the protocol is robust and that the variability observed in fertilisation rates is due to differences between individuals. We show that the embryos made from the frozen-thawed sperm are normal and that the adults they develop into are reproductively indistinguishable from others in the colony. This opens the way for using cryopreserved sperm to distribute dominant genetically altered (GA) lines, potentially saving travel-induced stress to the male frogs, reducing their numbers used and making Xenopus experiments more cost effective.The EXRC is supported by the Wellcome Trust (101480/Z), BBSRC (BB/K019988/1) and NC3Rs (NC/P001009/1). The NXR is supported by a grant from the NIH (P40 OD010997)

Machine learning techniques for intermediate mass gap lepton partner searches at the large hadron collider

We consider machine learning techniques associated with the application of a boosted decision tree (BDT) to searches at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) for pair-produced lepton partners which decay to leptons and invisible particles. This scenario can arise in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), but can be realized in many other extensions of the Standard Model (SM). We focus on the case of intermediate mass splitting (∼30 GeV) between the dark matter (DM) and the scalar. For these mass splittings, the LHC has made little improvement over LEP due to large electroweak backgrounds. We find that the use of machine learning techniques can push the LHC well past discovery sensitivity for a benchmark model with a lepton partner mass of ∼110 GeV, for an integrated luminosity of 300 fb-1, with a signal-to-background ratio of ∼0.3. The LHC could exclude models with a lepton partner mass as large as ∼160 GeV with the same luminosity. The use of machine learning techniques in searches for scalar lepton partners at the LHC could thus definitively probe the parameter space of the MSSM in which scalar muon mediated interactions between SM muons and Majorana singlet DM can both deplete the relic density through dark matter annihilation and satisfy the recently measured anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. We identify several machine learning techniques which can be useful in other LHC searches involving large and complex backgrounds

Early results and lessons learned from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of bone marrow aspirate concentrate in critical limb ischemia

ObjectivesDespite advances in endovascular therapies, critical limb ischemia (CLI) continues to be associated with high morbidity and mortality. Patients without direct revascularization options have the worst outcomes. We sought to explore the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial of a bone marrow-derived cellular therapy for CLI in this “no option” population.MethodsA pilot, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for “no option” CLI patients was performed. The therapy consisted of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), prepared using a point of service centrifugation technique and injected percutaneously in 40 injections to the affected limb. Patients were randomized to BMAC or sham injections (dilute blood). We are reporting the 12-week data.ResultsForty-eight patients were enrolled. The mean age was 69.5 years (range, 42-93 years). Males predominated (68%). Diabetes was present in 50%. Tissue loss (Rutherford 5) was present in 30 patients (62.5%), and 18 (37.5%) had rest pain without tissue loss (Rutherford 4). Patients were deemed unsuitable for conventional revascularization based on multiple prior failed revascularization efforts (24 [50%]), poor distal targets (43 [89.6%]), and medical risk (six [12.5%]). Thirty-four patients were treated with BMAC and 14 with sham injections. There were no adverse events attributed to the injections. Renal function was not affected. Effective blinding was confirmed; blinding index of 61% to 85%. Subjective and objective outcome measures were effectively obtained with the exception of treadmill walking times, which could only be obtained at baseline and follow-up in 15 of 48 subjects. This pilot study was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance but did demonstrate favorable trends for BMAC versus control in major amputations (17.6% vs 28.6%), improved pain (44% vs 25%), improved ankle brachial index (ABI; 32.4% vs 7.1%), improved Rutherford classification (35.3% vs 14.3%), and quality-of-life scoring better for BMAC in six of eight domains.ConclusionsIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of autologous bone marrow cell therapy for CLI, the therapy was well tolerated without significant adverse events. The BMAC group demonstrated trends toward improvement in amputation, pain, quality of life, Rutherford classification, and ABI when compared with controls. This pilot allowed us to identify several areas for improvement for future trials and CLI studies. These recommendations include elimination of treadmill testing, stratification by Rutherford class, and more liberal inclusion of patients with renal insufficiency. Our strongest recommendation is that CLI studies that include Rutherford 4 patients should incorporate a composite endpoint reflecting pain and quality of life

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health

Protocol: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? Search Methods A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. Selection Criteria We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development. Data Collection and Analysis All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form. Main Results The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines

New insights into the classification and nomenclature of cortical GABAergic interneurons.

A systematic classification and accepted nomenclature of neuron types is much needed but is currently lacking. This article describes a possible taxonomical solution for classifying GABAergic interneurons of the cerebral cortex based on a novel, web-based interactive system that allows experts to classify neurons with pre-determined criteria. Using Bayesian analysis and clustering algorithms on the resulting data, we investigated the suitability of several anatomical terms and neuron names for cortical GABAergic interneurons. Moreover, we show that supervised classification models could automatically categorize interneurons in agreement with experts' assignments. These results demonstrate a practical and objective approach to the naming, characterization and classification of neurons based on community consensus

The role of amputation as an outcome measure in cellular therapy for critical limb ischemia: implications for clinical trial design

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Autologous bone marrow-derived stem cells have been ascribed an important therapeutic role in No-Option Critical limb Ischemia (NO-CLI). One primary endpoint for evaluating NO-CLI therapy is major amputation (AMP), which is usually combined with mortality for AMP-free survival (AFS). Only a trial which is double blinded can eliminate physician and patient bias as to the timing and reason for AMP. We examined factors influencing AMP in a prospective double-blinded pilot RCT (2:1 therapy to control) of 48 patients treated with site of service obtained bone marrow cells (BMAC) as well as a systematic review of the literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cells were injected intramuscularly in the CLI limbs as either BMAC or placebo (peripheral blood). Six month AMP rates were compared between the two arms. Both patient and treating team were blinded of the assignment in follow-up examinations. A search of the literature identified 9 NO-CLI trials, the control arms of which were used to determine 6 month AMP rates and the influence of tissue loss.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen amputations occurred during the 6 month period, 86.7% of these during the first 4 months. One amputation occurred in a Rutherford 4 patient. The difference in amputation rate between patients with rest pain (5.6%) and those with tissue loss (46.7%), irrespective of treatment group, was significant (p = 0.0029). In patients with tissue loss, treatment with BMAC demonstrated a lower amputation rate than placebo (39.1% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.1337). The Kaplan-Meier time to amputation was longer in the BMAC group than in the placebo group (p = 0.067). Projecting these results to a pivotal trial, a bootstrap simulation model showed significant difference in AFS between BMAC and placebo with a power of 95% for a sample size of 210 patients. Meta-analysis of the literature confirmed a difference in amputation rate between patients with tissue loss and rest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>BMAC shows promise in improving AMP-free survival if the trends in this pilot study are validated in a larger pivotal trial. The difference in amp rate between Rutherford 4 & 5 patients suggests that these patients should be stratified in future RCTs.</p

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. RESULTS: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940

Active-site mTOR inhibitors augment HSV1-dICP0 infection in cancer cells via dysregulated eIF4E/4E-BP axis

Herpes Simplex Virus 1 (HSV1) is amongst the most clinically advanced oncolytic virus platforms. However, efficient and sustained viral replication within tumours is limiting. Rapamycin can stimulate HSV1 replication in cancer cells, but active-site dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 (mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 and 2) inhibitors (asTORi) were shown to suppress the virus in normal cells. Surprisingly, using the infected cell protein 0 (ICP0)-deleted HSV1 (HSV1-dICP0), we found that asTORi markedly augment infection in cancer cells and a mouse mammary cancer xenograft. Mechanistically, asTORi repressed mRNA translation in normal cells, resulting in defective antiviral response but also inhibition of HSV1-dICP0 replication. asTORi also reduced antiviral response in cancer cells, however in contrast to normal cells, transformed cells and cells transduced to elevate the expression of eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) or to silence the repressors eIF4E binding proteins (4E-BPs), selectively maintained HSV1-dICP0 protein synthesis during asTORi treatment, ultimately supporting increased viral replication. Our data show that altered eIF4E/4E-BPs expression can act to promote HSV1-dICP0 infection under prolonged mTOR inhibition. Thus, pharmacoviral combination of asTORi and HSV1 can target cancer cells displaying dysregulated eIF4E/4E-BPs axis.</div

Mapping genetic variations to three- dimensional protein structures to enhance variant interpretation: a proposed framework

The translation of personal genomics to precision medicine depends on the accurate interpretation of the multitude of genetic variants observed for each individual. However, even when genetic variants are predicted to modify a protein, their functional implications may be unclear. Many diseases are caused by genetic variants affecting important protein features, such as enzyme active sites or interaction interfaces. The scientific community has catalogued millions of genetic variants in genomic databases and thousands of protein structures in the Protein Data Bank. Mapping mutations onto three-dimensional (3D) structures enables atomic-level analyses of protein positions that may be important for the stability or formation of interactions; these may explain the effect of mutations and in some cases even open a path for targeted drug development. To accelerate progress in the integration of these data types, we held a two-day Gene Variation to 3D (GVto3D) workshop to report on the latest advances and to discuss unmet needs. The overarching goal of the workshop was to address the question: what can be done together as a community to advance the integration of genetic variants and 3D protein structures that could not be done by a single investigator or laboratory? Here we describe the workshop outcomes, review the state of the field, and propose the development of a framework with which to promote progress in this arena. The framework will include a set of standard formats, common ontologies, a common application programming interface to enable interoperation of the resources, and a Tool Registry to make it easy to find and apply the tools to specific analysis problems. Interoperability will enable integration of diverse data sources and tools and collaborative development of variant effect prediction methods