MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Viral Fitness Landscapes in Diverse Host Species Reveal Multiple Evolutionary Lines for the NS1 Gene of Influenza A Viruses

Muñoz-Moreno R, Martínez-Romero C, Blanco-Melo D, Forst CV, Nachbagauer R, Benitez AA, et al.

Cell Rep, 2019 12 17;29(12):3997-4009.e5.
PMID: 31851929 DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.11.070

Influenza A viruses (IAVs) have a remarkable tropism in their ability to circulate in both mammalian and avian species. The IAV NS1 protein is a multifunctional virulence factor that inhibits the type I interferon host response through a myriad of mechanisms. How NS1 has evolved to enable this remarkable property across species and its specific impact in the overall replication, pathogenicity, and host preference remain unknown. Here we analyze the NS1 evolutionary landscape and host tropism using a barcoded library of recombinant IAVs. Results show a surprisingly great variety of NS1 phenotypes according to their ability to replicate in different hosts. The IAV NS1 genes appear to have taken diverse and random evolutionary pathways within their multiple phylogenetic lineages. In summary, the high evolutionary plasticity of this viral protein underscores the ability of IAVs to adapt to multiple hosts and aids in our understanding of its global prevalence.
Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk

Windecker S, Latib A, Kedhi E, Kirtane AJ, Kandzari DE, Mehran R, et al.

N Engl J Med, 2020 03 26;382(13):1208-1218.
PMID: 32050061 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910021

BACKGROUND: Polymer-free drug-coated stents provide superior clinical outcomes to bare-metal stents in patients at high bleeding risk who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. Data on the use of polymer-based drug-eluting stents, as compared with polymer-free drug-coated stents, in such patients are limited.
METHODS: In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus-coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority.
RESULTS: A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drug-coated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes. (Funded by Medtronic; ONYX ONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344653.).
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.

Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.