Abrogation of Junctional Adhesion Molecule-A Expression Induces Cell Apoptosis and Reduces Breast Cancer Progression

Intercellular junctions promote homotypic cell to cell adhesion and transfer intracellular signals which control cell growth and apoptosis. Junctional adhesion molecule-A (JAM-A) is a transmembrane immunoglobulin located at tight junctions of normal epithelial cells of mammary ducts and glands. In the present paper we show that JAM-A acts as a survival factor for mammary carcinoma cells. JAM-A null mice expressing Polyoma Middle T under MMTV promoter develop significantly smaller mammary tumors than JAM-A positive mice. Angiogenesis and inflammatory or immune infiltrate were not statistically modified in absence of JAM-A but tumor cell apoptosis was significantly increased. Tumor cells isolated from JAM-A null mice or 4T1 cells incubated with JAM-A blocking antibodies showed reduced growth and increased apoptosis which paralleled altered junctional architecture and adhesive function. In a breast cancer clinical data set, tissue microarray data show that JAM-A expression correlates with poor prognosis. Gene expression analysis of mouse tumor samples showed a correlation between genes enriched in human G3 tumors and genes over expressed in JAM-A +/+ mammary tumors. Conversely, genes enriched in G1 human tumors correlate with genes overexpressed in JAM-A−/− tumors. We conclude that down regulation of JAM-A reduces tumor aggressive behavior by increasing cell susceptibility to apoptosis. JAM-A may be considered a negative prognostic factor and a potential therapeutic target

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

Aim: Comprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW). Location: Global. Taxon: All extant mammal species. Methods: Range maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species). Results: Range maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use. Main conclusion: Expert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control.Fil: Marsh, Charles J.. Yale University; Estados UnidosFil: Sica, Yanina. Yale University; Estados UnidosFil: Burguin, Connor. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Dorman, Wendy A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Anderson, Robert C.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: del Toro Mijares, Isabel. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Vigneron, Jessica G.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Barve, Vijay. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Dombrowik, Victoria L.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Duong, Michelle. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Guralnick, Robert. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Julie A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Maypole, J. Krish. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: McCall, Kira. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Ranipeta, Ajay. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Schuerkmann, Anna. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Torselli, Michael A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Lacher, Thomas. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Don E.. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Abba, Agustin Manuel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; ArgentinaFil: Aguirre, Luis F.. Universidad Mayor de San Simón; BoliviaFil: Arroyo Cabrales, Joaquín. Instituto Nacional de Antropología E Historia, Mexico; MéxicoFil: Astúa, Diego. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Baker, Andrew M.. Queensland University of Technology; Australia. Queensland Museum; AustraliaFil: Braulik, Gill. University of St. Andrews; Reino UnidoFil: Braun, Janet K.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Brito, Jorge. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Busher, Peter E.. Boston University; Estados UnidosFil: Burneo, Santiago F.. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: Camacho, M. Alejandra. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: de Almeida Chiquito, Elisandra. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BrasilFil: Cook, Joseph A.. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Cuéllar Soto, Erika. Sultan Qaboos University; OmánFil: Davenport, Tim R. B.. Wildlife Conservation Society; TanzaniaFil: Denys, Christiane. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; FranciaFil: Dickman, Christopher R.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Eldridge, Mark D. B.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Fernandez Duque, Eduardo. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Francis, Charles M.. Environment And Climate Change Canada; CanadáFil: Frankham, Greta. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Freitas, Thales. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Friend, J. Anthony. Conservation And Attractions; AustraliaFil: Giannini, Norberto Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Gursky-Doyen, Sharon. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Hackländer, Klaus. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Hawkins, Melissa. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Helgen, Kristofer M.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Heritage, Steven. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Hinckley, Arlo. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Holden, Mary. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Holekamp, Kay E.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Humle, Tatyana. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Ibáñez Ulargui, Carlos. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Jackson, Stephen M.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Janecka, Mary. University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown; Estados Unidos. University of Pittsburgh; Estados UnidosFil: Jenkins, Paula. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Juste, Javier. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Leite, Yuri L. R.. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BrasilFil: Novaes, Roberto Leonan M.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lim, Burton K.. Royal Ontario Museum; CanadáFil: Maisels, Fiona G.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Mares, Michael A.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Marsh, Helene. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Mattioli, Stefano. Università degli Studi di Siena; ItaliaFil: Morton, F. Blake. University of Hull; Reino UnidoFil: Ojeda, Agustina Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas; ArgentinaFil: Ordóñez Garza, Nicté. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Pardiñas, Ulises Francisco J.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Diversidad y Evolución Austral; ArgentinaFil: Pavan, Mariana. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Riley, Erin P.. San Diego State University; Estados UnidosFil: Rubenstein, Daniel I.. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Ruelas, Dennisse. Museo de Historia Natural, Lima; PerúFil: Schai-Braun, Stéphanie. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Schank, Cody J.. University of Texas at Austin; Estados UnidosFil: Shenbrot, Georgy. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Solari, Sergio. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Superina, Mariella. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Medicina y Biología Experimental de Cuyo; ArgentinaFil: Tsang, Susan. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Van Cakenberghe, Victor. Universiteit Antwerp; BélgicaFil: Veron, Geraldine. Université Pierre et Marie Curie; FranciaFil: Wallis, Janette. Kasokwa-kityedo Forest Project; UgandaFil: Whittaker, Danielle. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Wells, Rod. Flinders University.; AustraliaFil: Wittemyer, George. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Woinarski, John. Charles Darwin University; AustraliaFil: Upham, Nathan S.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Jetz, Walter. University of Yale; Estados Unido

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

AimComprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW).LocationGlobal.TaxonAll extant mammal species.MethodsRange maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species).ResultsRange maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use.Main conclusionExpert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control

Safety and efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce ileus after colorectal surgery

Background: Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods: A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student- and trainee-led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre-specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results: A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57\u201375) years (54\ub79 per cent men). Some 1153 (27\ub77 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1\u20133, of whom 1061 (92\ub70 per cent) received non-selective cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4\ub76 versus 4\ub78 days; hazard ratio 1\ub704, 95 per cent c.i. 0\ub796 to 1\ub712; P = 0\ub7360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5\ub74 versus 4\ub76 per cent; P = 0\ub7349) or acute kidney injury (14\ub73 versus 13\ub78 per cent; P = 0\ub7666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35\ub73 versus 56\ub77 per cent; P < 0\ub7001). Conclusion: NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

Background: Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function.Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.Results: A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9.2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4-7) and 7 (6-8) days respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6.6 versus 8.0 per cent; P = 0.499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0.90, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.46; P = 0.659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34.7 versus 39.5 per cent; major 3.3 versus 3.4 per cent; P = 0.110).Conclusion: Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

Background: Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function. Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien–Dindo classification system. Results: A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9·2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4–7) and 7 (6–8) days respectively (P < 0·001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6·6 versus 8·0 per cent; P = 0·499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0·90, 95 per cent c.i. 0·55 to 1·46; P = 0·659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34·7 versus 39·5 per cent; major 3·3 versus 3·4 per cent; P = 0·110). Conclusion: Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients

Timing of nasogastric tube insertion and the risk of postoperative pneumonia: an international, prospective cohort study

Aim: Aspiration is a common cause of pneumonia in patients with postoperative ileus. Insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) is often performed, but this can be distressing. The aim of this study was to determine whether the timing of NGT insertion after surgery (before versus after vomiting) was associated with reduced rates of pneumonia in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Method: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between January 2018 and April 2018 were eligible. Those receiving a NGT were divided into three groups, based on the timing of the insertion: routine NGT (inserted at the time of surgery), prophylactic NGT (inserted after surgery but before vomiting) and reactive NGT (inserted after surgery and after vomiting). The primary outcome was the development of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery, which was compared between the prophylactic and reactive NGT groups using multivariable regression analysis. Results: A total of 4715 patients were included in the analysis and 1536 (32.6%) received a NGT. These were classified as routine in 926 (60.3%), reactive in 461 (30.0%) and prophylactic in 149 (9.7%). Two hundred patients (4.2%) developed pneumonia (no NGT 2.7%; routine NGT 5.2%; reactive NGT 10.6%; prophylactic NGT 11.4%). After adjustment for confounding factors, no significant difference in pneumonia rates was detected between the prophylactic and reactive NGT groups (odds ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.56\u20131.87, P = 0.932). Conclusion: In patients who required the insertion of a NGT after surgery, prophylactic insertion was not associated with fewer cases of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery compared with reactive insertion

Timing of nasogastric tube insertion and the risk of postoperative pneumonia: an international, prospective cohort study

Aim: Aspiration is a common cause of pneumonia in patients with postoperative ileus. Insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) is often performed, but this can be distressing. The aim of this study was to determine whether the timing of NGT insertion after surgery (before versus after vomiting) was associated with reduced rates of pneumonia in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Method: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between January 2018 and April 2018 were eligible. Those receiving a NGT were divided into three groups, based on the timing of the insertion: routine NGT (inserted at the time of surgery), prophylactic NGT (inserted after surgery but before vomiting) and reactive NGT (inserted after surgery and after vomiting). The primary outcome was the development of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery, which was compared between the prophylactic and reactive NGT groups using multivariable regression analysis. Results: A total of 4715 patients were included in the analysis and 1536 (32.6%) received a NGT. These were classified as routine in 926 (60.3%), reactive in 461 (30.0%) and prophylactic in 149 (9.7%). Two hundred patients (4.2%) developed pneumonia (no NGT 2.7%; routine NGT 5.2%; reactive NGT 10.6%; prophylactic NGT 11.4%). After adjustment for confounding factors, no significant difference in pneumonia rates was detected between the prophylactic and reactive NGT groups (odds ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.56–1.87, P = 0.932). Conclusion: In patients who required the insertion of a NGT after surgery, prophylactic insertion was not associated with fewer cases of pneumonia within 30 days of surgery compared with reactive insertion