Transcriptome Assessment of Erythema migrans Skin Lesions in Patients with Early Lyme Disease Reveals Predominant Interferon Signaling

Background: The most common clinical manifestation of early Lyme disease is the erythema migrans (EM) skin lesion that develops at the tick bite site typically between 7 and 14 days after infection with Borreliella burgdorferi. The host-pathogen interactions that occur in the skin may have a critical role in determining outcome of infection.Methods: Gene arrays were used to characterize the global transcriptional alterations in skin biopsy samples of EM lesions from untreated adult patients with Lyme disease in comparison to controls.Results: The transcriptional pattern in EM biopsies consisted of 254 differentially regulated genes (180 induced and 74 repressed) characterized by the induction of chemokines, cytokines, Toll-like receptors, antimicrobial peptides, monocytoid cell activation markers, and numerous genes annotated as interferon (IFN)-inducible. The IFN-inducible genes included 3 transcripts involved in tryptophan catabolism (IDO1, KMO, KYNU) that play a pivotal role in immune evasion by certain other microbial pathogens by driving the differentiation of regulatory T cells.Conclusions: This is the first study to globally assess the human skin transcriptional response during early Lyme disease. Borreliella burgdorferi elicits a predominant IFN signature in the EM lesion, suggesting a potential mechanism for spirochetal dissemination via IDO1-mediated localized immunosuppression

Characterization and treatment of chronic active Epstein-Barr virus disease: a 28-year experience in the United States

Chronic active EBV disease (CAEBV) is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by markedly elevated levels of antibody to EBV or EBV DNA in the blood and EBV RNA or protein in lymphocytes in tissues. We present our experience with CAEBV during the last 28 years, including the first 8 cases treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the United States. Most cases of CAEBV have been reported from Japan. Unlike CAEBV in Japan, where EBV is nearly always found in T or natural killer (NK) cells in tissues, EBV was usually detected in B cells in tissues from our patients. Most patients presented with lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly; fever, hepatitis, and pancytopenia were common. Most patients died of infection or progressive lymphoproliferation. Unlike cases reported from Japan, our patients often showed a progressive loss of B cells and hypogammaglobulinemia. Although patients with CAEBV from Japan have normal or increased numbers of NK cells, many of our patients had reduced NK-cell numbers. Although immunosuppressive agents, rituximab, autologous cytotoxic T cells, or cytotoxic chemotherapy often resulted in short-term remissions, they were not curative. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was often curative for CAEBV, even in patients with active lymphoproliferative disease that was unresponsive to chemotherapy. These studies are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00032513 for CAEBV, NCT00062868 and NCT00058812 for EBV-specific T-cell studies, and NCT00578539 for the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation protocol

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field