Expression of SPIG1 Reveals Development of a Retinal Ganglion Cell Subtype Projecting to the Medial Terminal Nucleus in the Mouse

Visual information is transmitted to the brain by roughly a dozen distinct types of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) defined by a characteristic morphology, physiology, and central projections. However, our understanding about how these parallel pathways develop is still in its infancy, because few molecular markers corresponding to individual RGC types are available. Previously, we reported a secretory protein, SPIG1 (clone name; D/Bsp120I #1), preferentially expressed in the dorsal region in the developing chick retina. Here, we generated knock-in mice to visualize SPIG1-expressing cells with green fluorescent protein. We found that the mouse retina is subdivided into two distinct domains for SPIG1 expression and SPIG1 effectively marks a unique subtype of the retinal ganglion cells during the neonatal period. SPIG1-positive RGCs in the dorsotemporal domain project to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN), superior colliculus, and accessory optic system (AOS). In contrast, in the remaining region, here named the pan-ventronasal domain, SPIG1-positive cells form a regular mosaic and project exclusively to the medial terminal nucleus (MTN) of the AOS that mediates the optokinetic nystagmus as early as P1. Their dendrites costratify with ON cholinergic amacrine strata in the inner plexiform layer as early as P3. These findings suggest that these SPIG1-positive cells are the ON direction selective ganglion cells (DSGCs). Moreover, the MTN-projecting cells in the pan-ventronasal domain are apparently composed of two distinct but interdependent regular mosaics depending on the presence or absence of SPIG1, indicating that they comprise two functionally distinct subtypes of the ON DSGCs. The formation of the regular mosaic appears to be commenced at the end of the prenatal stage and completed through the peak period of the cell death at P6. SPIG1 will thus serve as a useful molecular marker for future studies on the development and function of ON DSGCs

The Sociophysiology of Caring in the Doctor-patient Relationship

The emotional investment required to construct a caring doctor-patient relationship can be justified on humane grounds. Can it also be justified as a direct physiologic intervention? Two lines of evidence point in this direction. People in an empathic relationship exhibit a correlation of indicators of autonomic activity. This occurs between speakers and responsive listeners, members of a coherent group, and bonded pairs of higher social animals. Furthermore, the experience of feeling cared about in a relationship reduces the secretion of stress hormones and shifts the neuroendocrine system toward homeostasis. Because the social engagement of emotions is simultaneously the social engagement of the physiologic substrate of those emotions, the process has been labeled sociophysiology. This process can influence the health of both parties in the doctor-patient relationship, and may be relevant to third parties

Have we overestimated the benefit of human(ized) antibodies?

The infusion of animal-derived antibodies has been known for some time to trigger the generation of antibodies directed at the foreign protein as well as adverse events including cytokine release syndrome. These immunological phenomena drove the development of humanized and fully human monoclonal antibodies. The ability to generate human(ized) antibodies has been both a blessing and a curse. While incremental gains in the clinical efficacy and safety for some agents have been realized, a positive effect has not been observed for all human(ized) antibodies. Many human(ized) antibodies trigger the development of anti-drug antibody responses and infusion reactions. The current belief that antibodies need to be human(ized) to have enhanced therapeutic utility may slow the development of novel animal-derived monoclonal antibody therapeutics for use in clinical indications. In the case of murine antibodies, greater than 20% induce tolerable/negligible immunogenicity, suggesting that in these cases humanization may not offer significant gains in therapeutic utility. Furthermore, humanization of some murine antibodies may reduce their clinical effectiveness. The available data suggest that the utility of human(ized) antibodies needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking a cost-benefit approach, taking both biochemical characteristics and the targeted therapeutic indication into account