Ascertaining the biochemical function of an essential pectin methylesterase in the gut microbe Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron

Pectins are a major dietary nutrient source for the human gut microbiota. The prominent gut microbe Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron was recently shown to encode the founding member (BT1017) of a new family of pectin methylesterases essential for the metabolism of the complex pectin rhamnogalacturonan-II (RG-II). However, biochemical and structural knowledge of this family is lacking. Here, we showed that BT1017 is critical for the metabolism of an RG-II–derived oligosaccharide ΔBT1017oligoB generated by a BT1017 deletion mutant (ΔBT1017) during growth on carbohydrate extract from apple juice. Structural analyses of ΔBT1017oligoB using a combination of enzymatic, mass spectrometric, and NMR approaches revealed that it is a bimethylated nonaoligosaccharide (GlcA-β1,4-(2-O-Me-Xyl-α1,3)-Fuc-α1,4-(GalA-β1,3)-Rha-α1,3-Api-β1,2-(Araf-α1,3)-(GalA-α1,4)-GalA) containing components of the RG-II backbone and its side chains. We showed that the catalytic module of BT1017 adopts an α/β-hydrolase fold, consisting of a central twisted 10-stranded β-sheet sandwiched by several α-helices. This constitutes a new fold for pectin methylesterases, which are predominantly right-handed β-helical proteins. Bioinformatic analyses revealed that the family is dominated by sequences from prominent genera of the human gut microbiota, including Bacteroides and Prevotella. Our re-sults not only highlight the critical role played by this family of enzymes in pectin metabolism but also provide new insights into the molecular basis of the adaptation of B. thetaiotaomicron to the human gut

Urgent need to clarify the definition of chronic critical limb ischemia - a position paper from the European Society for Vascular Medicine

Chronic critical lower limb ischemia (CLI) has been defined as ischemia that endangers the leg. An attempt was made to give a precise definition of CLI, based on clinical and hemodynamic data (Second European Consensus). CLI may be easily defined from a clinical point of view as rest pain of the distal foot or gangrene or ulceration. It is probably useful to add leg ulcers of other origin which do not heal because of severe ischemia, and to consider the impact of frailty on adverse outcome. From a hemodynamic viewpoint there is no consensus and most of the existing classifications are not based upon evidence. We should thus propose a definition and then validate it in a prospective cohort in order to define the patients at major risk of amputation, and also to define the categories of patients whose prognosis is improved by revascularisation. From today\u27s available data, it seems clear that the patients with a systolic toe pressure (STP) below 30 mmHg must be revascularised whenever possible. However other patients with clinically suspected CLI and STP above 30 mmHg must be evaluated and treated in specialised vascular units and revascularisation has to be discussed on a case by case basis, taking into account other data such as the WiFi classification for ulcers.In conclusion, many useful but at times contradictory definitions of CLI have been suggested. Only a few have taken into account evidence, and none have been validated prospectively. This paper aims to address this and to give notice that a CLI registry within Europe will be set up to prospectively validate, or not, the previous and suggested definitions of CLI

Rate and duration of hospitalisation for acute pulmonary embolism in the real-world clinical practice of different countries : Analysis from the RIETE registry

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Extended Thromboprophylaxis with Betrixaban in Acutely Ill Medical Patients

Background Patients with acute medical illnesses are at prolonged risk for venous thrombosis. However, the appropriate duration of thromboprophylaxis remains unknown. Methods Patients who were hospitalized for acute medical illnesses were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous enoxaparin (at a dose of 40 mg once daily) for 10±4 days plus oral betrixaban placebo for 35 to 42 days or subcutaneous enoxaparin placebo for 10±4 days plus oral betrixaban (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) for 35 to 42 days. We performed sequential analyses in three prespecified, progressively inclusive cohorts: patients with an elevated d-dimer level (cohort 1), patients with an elevated d-dimer level or an age of at least 75 years (cohort 2), and all the enrolled patients (overall population cohort). The statistical analysis plan specified that if the between-group difference in any analysis in this sequence was not significant, the other analyses would be considered exploratory. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of asymptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding. Results A total of 7513 patients underwent randomization. In cohort 1, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.9% of patients receiving betrixaban and 8.5% receiving enoxaparin (relative risk in the betrixaban group, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 1.00; P=0.054). The rates were 5.6% and 7.1%, respectively (relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03) in cohort 2 and 5.3% and 7.0% (relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92; P=0.006) in the overall population. (The last two analyses were considered to be exploratory owing to the result in cohort 1.) In the overall population, major bleeding occurred in 0.7% of the betrixaban group and 0.6% of the enoxaparin group (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.12; P=0.55). Conclusions Among acutely ill medical patients with an elevated d-dimer level, there was no significant difference between extended-duration betrixaban and a standard regimen of enoxaparin in the prespecified primary efficacy outcome. However, prespecified exploratory analyses provided evidence suggesting a benefit for betrixaban in the two larger cohorts. (Funded by Portola Pharmaceuticals; APEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01583218. opens in new tab.

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib substantially raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, reduces the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and enhances cellular cholesterol efflux capacity. We sought to determine the effect of evacetrapib on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high-risk vascular disease. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we enrolled 12,092 patients who had at least one of the following conditions: an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atherosclerotic disease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either evacetrapib at a dose of 130 mg or matching placebo, administered daily, in addition to standard medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was the first occurrence of any component of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: At 3 months, a 31.1% decrease in the mean LDL cholesterol level was observed with evacetrapib versus a 6.0% increase with placebo, and a 133.2% increase in the mean HDL cholesterol level was seen with evacetrapib versus a 1.6% increase with placebo. After 1363 of the planned 1670 primary end-point events had occurred, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be terminated early because of a lack of efficacy. After a median of 26 months of evacetrapib or placebo, a primary end-point event occurred in 12.9% of the patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.11; P=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Although the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib had favorable effects on established lipid biomarkers, treatment with evacetrapib did not result in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo among patients with high-risk vascular disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ACCELERATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687998 .)