5 research outputs found
Cardiac Repair and Regenerative Potential in the Goldfish (Carassius auratus) Heart
The remarkable ability of the heart to regenerate has been demonstrated in the zebrafish and giant danio, two fish members of the cyprinid family. Here we use light and electron microscopy to examine the repair response in the heart of another cyprinid, the goldfish (Carassius auratus), following cautery injury to a small portion of its ventricularmyocardium. We observed a robust inflammatory response in the first two weeks consisting primarily of infiltrating macrophages, heterophils, and melanomacrophages. These inflammatory cells were identified in the lumen of the spongy heart, within the site of the wound, and attached to endocardial cells adjacent to the site of injury. Marked accumulation of collagen fibers and increased connective tissue were also observed during the first and second weeks in a transition zone between healthy and injured myocardium as well as in adjacent sub-epicardial regions. The accumulation of collagen and connective tissue however did not persist. The presence of capillaries was also noted in the injured area during repair. The replacement of the cauterized region of the ventricle by myocardial tissue was achieved in 6 weeks. The presence of ethynyl deoxyuridinepositive cardiac myocytes and partially differentiated cardiac myocytes during repair suggest effective cardiac myocyte driven regeneration mechanisms also operate in the injured goldfish heart, and are similar to those observed in zebrafish and giant danio. Our data suggest the ability for cardiac regeneration may be widely conserved among cyprinids
Differential Lectin Binding Patterns Identify Distinct Heart Regions in Giant Danio ( Devario aequipinnatus
Recommended from our members
Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context
Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health
Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context
Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health