Coexpression of rat P2X2 and P2X6 subunits in Xenopus oocytes.

Transcripts for P2X(2) and P2X(6) subunits are present in rat CNS and frequently colocalize in the same brainstem nuclei. When rat P2X(2) (rP2X(2)) and rat P2X(6) (rP2X(6)) receptors were expressed individually in Xenopus oocytes and studied under voltage-clamp conditions, only homomeric rP2X(2) receptors were fully functional and gave rise to large inward currents (2-3 microA) to extracellular ATP. Coexpression of rP2X(2) and rP2X(6) subunits in Xenopus oocytes resulted in a heteromeric rP2X(2/6) receptor, which showed a significantly different phenotype from the wild-type rP2X(2) receptor. Differences included reduction in agonist potencies and, in some cases (e.g., Ap(4)A), significant loss of agonist activity. ATP-evoked inward currents were biphasic at the heteromeric rP2X(2/6) receptor, particularly when Zn(2+) ions were present or extracellular pH was lowered. The pH range was narrower for H(+) enhancement of ATP responses at the heteromeric rP2X(2/6) receptor. Also, H(+) ions inhibited ATP responses at low pH levels (<pH 6.3). The pH-dependent blocking activity of suramin was changed at this heteromeric receptor, although the potentiating effect of Zn(2+) on ATP responses was unchanged. Thus, the rP2X(2/6) receptor is a functionally modified P2X(2)-like receptor with a distinct pattern of pH modulation of ATP activation and suramin blockade. Although homomeric P2X(6) receptors function poorly, the P2X(6) subunit can contribute to functional heteromeric P2X channels and may influence the phenotype of native P2X receptors in those cells in which it is expressed

"Professores-Youtubers": análise de três canais do youtube voltados para o ensino de História

Este artigo é fruto de uma pesquisa que procurou compreender como se dá o processo de ensino de História no YouTube, a partir de um estudo de caso de "professores-youtubers". Investigou-se youtubers que utilizam a plataforma como espaço para publicar suas aulas, produzir e divulgar conhecimento histórico. Diante da atual conjuntura das novas tecnologias de informação e comunicação disponíveis, que aos poucos vão conectando e transformando as práticas educacionais, buscou-se analisar três canais no YouTube entre os mais visualizados no Brasil voltados para o ensino de História: “Leitura ObrigaHistória”; “Se Liga Nessa História”; “Vamos Falar de História?”. O objetivo central é compreender a relação desses youtubers com a plataforma, dentro da cultura participativa da Web 2.0, juntamente com o ensino de História e seu público

Gag-Protease Sequence Evolution Following Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Treatment Failure in HIV-1 Viruses Circulating in East Africa.

Around 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals failing first-line therapy qualify for boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based second-line therapy globally. Major resistance mutations are rarely present at treatment failure in patients receiving bPI and the determinants of failure in these patients remain unknown. There is evidence that Gag can impact PI susceptibility. Here, we have sequenced Gag-Protease before and following failure in 23 patients in the SARA trial infected with subtypes A, C, and D viruses. Before bPI, significant variation in Protease and Gag was observed at positions previously associated with PI exposure and resistance including Gag mutations L449P, S451N, and L453P and Protease K20I and L63P. Following PI failure, previously described mutations in Protease and Gag were observed, including those at the cleavage sites such as R361K and P453L. However, the emergence of clear genetic determinants of therapy failure across patients was not observed. Larger Gag sequence datasets will be required to comprehensively identify mutational correlates of bPI failure across subtypes

Evidence for Reduced Drug Susceptibility without Emergence of Major Protease Mutations following Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Failure in the SARA Trial

BACKGROUND: Major protease mutations are rarely observed following failure with protease inhibitors (PI), and other viral determinants of failure to PI are poorly understood. We therefore characterized Gag-Protease phenotypic susceptibility in subtype A and D viruses circulating in East Africa following viral rebound on PIs. METHODS: Samples from baseline and treatment failure in patients enrolled in the second line LPV/r trial SARA underwent phenotypic susceptibility testing. Data were expressed as fold-change in susceptibility relative to a LPV-susceptible reference strain. RESULTS: We cloned 48 Gag-Protease containing sequences from seven individuals and performed drug resistance phenotyping from pre-PI and treatment failure timepoints in seven patients. For the six patients where major protease inhibitor resistance mutations did not emerge, mean fold-change EC50 to LPV was 4.07 fold (95% CI, 2.08-6.07) at the pre-PI timepoint. Following viral failure the mean fold-change in EC50 to LPV was 4.25 fold (95% CI, 1.39-7.11, p = 0.91). All viruses remained susceptible to DRV. In our assay system, the major PI resistance mutation I84V, which emerged in one individual, conferred a 10.5-fold reduction in LPV susceptibility. One of the six patients exhibited a significant reduction in susceptibility between pre-PI and failure timepoints (from 4.7 fold to 9.6 fold) in the absence of known major mutations in protease, but associated with changes in Gag: V7I, G49D, R69Q, A120D, Q127K, N375S and I462S. Phylogenetic analysis provided evidence of the emergence of genetically distinct viruses at the time of treatment failure, indicating ongoing viral evolution in Gag-protease under PI pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Here we observe in one patient the development of significantly reduced susceptibility conferred by changes in Gag which may have contributed to treatment failure on a protease inhibitor containing regimen. Further phenotype-genotype studies are required to elucidate genetic determinants of protease inhibitor failure in those who fail without traditional resistance mutations whilst PI use is being scaled up globally

The virological durability of first-line ART among HIV-positive adult patients in resource limited settings without virological monitoring: a retrospective analysis of DART trial data

BACKGROUND: Few low-income countries have virological monitoring widely available. We estimated the virological durability of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) after five years of follow-up among adult Ugandan and Zimbabwean patients in the DART study, in which virological assays were conducted retrospectively. METHODS: DART compared clinically driven monitoring with/without routine CD4 measurement. Annual plasma viral load was measured on 1,762 patients. Analytical weights were calculated based on the inverse probability of sampling. Time to virological failure, defined as the first viral load measurement ≥200 copies/mL after 48 weeks of ART, was analysed using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of DART trial patients were female. Patients initiated first-line ART at a median (interquartile range; IQR) age of 37 (32-42) and with a median CD4 cell count of 86 (32-140). After 240 weeks of ART, patients initiating dual-class nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) -non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase (NNRTI) regimens containing nevirapine + zidovudine + lamivudine had a lower incidence of virological failure than patients on triple-NRTI regimens containing tenofovir + zidovudine + lamivudine (21% vs 40%; hazard ratio (HR) =0.48, 95% CI:0.38-0.62; p < 0.0001). In multivariate analyses, female patients (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95; p = 0.02), older patients (HR = 0.73 per 10 years, 95% CI: 0.64-0.84; p < 0.0001) and patients with a higher pre-ART CD4 cell count (HR = 0.64 per 100 cells/mm(3), 95% CI: 0.54-0.75; p < 0.0001) had a lower incidence of virological failure after adjusting for adherence to ART. No difference in failure rate between the two randomised monitoring strategies was observed (p= 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term durability of virological suppression on dual-class NRTI-NNRTI first-line ART without virological monitoring is remarkable and is enabled by high-quality clinical management and a consistent drug supply. To achieve higher rates of virological suppression viral-load-informed differentiated care may be required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 18/10/2000 as ISRCTN13968779

Defining Potential Therapeutic Targets in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of a Single-Center Cohort

OBJECTIVES: Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019. Therapeutic approaches need to be underpinned by sound biological rationale. We evaluated whether serum levels of a range of proposed coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutic targets discriminated between patients with mild or severe disease. DESIGN: A search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified coronavirus disease 2019 immunological drug targets. We subsequently conducted a retrospective observational cohort study investigating the association of serum biomarkers within the first 5 days of hospital admission relating to putative therapeutic biomarkers with illness severity and outcome. SETTING: University College London, a tertiary academic medical center in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were recruited, 44 (51%) with mild disease and 42 (49%) with severe disease. We measured levels of 10 cytokines/signaling proteins related to the most common therapeutic targets (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-α2a, interferon-β, interferon-γ, interleukin-1β, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, tumor necrosis factor-α), immunoglobulin G antibodies directed against either coronavirus disease 2019 spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, and neutralization titers of antibodies. Four-hundred seventy-seven randomized trials, including 168 different therapies against 83 different pathways, were identified. Six of the 10 markers (interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, interferon-α2a, interferon-β, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) discriminated between patients with mild and severe disease, although most were similar or only modestly raised above that seen in healthy volunteers. A similar proportion of patients with mild or severe disease had detectable spike protein or nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin G antibodies with equivalent levels between groups. Neutralization titers were higher among patients with severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: Some therapeutic and prognostic biomarkers may be useful in identifying coronavirus disease 2019 patients who may benefit from specific immunomodulatory therapies, particularly interleukin-6. However, biomarker absolute values often did not discriminate between patients with mild and severe disease or death, implying that these immunomodulatory treatments may be of limited benefit