Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Adult Stem Cells in Sustained Lung Injury: A Comparative Study

Lung diseases are a major cause of global morbidity and mortality that are treated with limited efficacy. Recently stem cell therapies have been shown to effectively treat animal models of lung disease. However, there are limitations to the translation of these cell therapies to clinical disease. Studies have shown that delayed treatment of animal models does not improve outcomes and that the models do not reflect the repeated injury that is present in most lung diseases. We tested the efficacy of amnion mesenchymal stem cells (AM-MSC), bone marrow MSC (BM-MSC) and human amniotic epithelial cells (hAEC) in C57BL/6 mice using a repeat dose bleomycin-induced model of lung injury that better reflects the repeat injury seen in lung diseases. The dual bleomycin dose led to significantly higher levels of inflammation and fibrosis in the mouse lung compared to a single bleomycin dose. Intravenously infused stem cells were present in the lung in similar numbers at days 7 and 21 post cell injection. In addition, stem cell injection resulted in a significant decrease in inflammatory cell infiltrate and a reduction in IL-1 (AM-MSC), IL-6 (AM-MSC, BM-MSC, hAEC) and TNF-α (AM-MSC). The only trophic factor tested that increased following stem cell injection was IL-1RA (AM-MSC). IL-1RA levels may be modulated by GM-CSF produced by AM-MSC. Furthermore, only AM-MSC reduced collagen deposition and increased MMP-9 activity in the lung although there was a reduction of the pro-fibrogenic cytokine TGF-β following BM-MSC, AM-MSC and hAEC treatment. Therefore, AM-MSC may be more effective in reducing injury following delayed injection in the setting of repeated lung injury.     

Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Extracorporeal Urinary Diversion Does Not Show a Benefit over Open Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

BackgroundThe number of robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) procedures is increasing despite the lack of Level I evidence showing any advantages over open radical cystectomy (ORC). However, several systematic reviews with meta-analyses including non-randomised studies, suggest an overall benefit for RARC compared to ORC. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the perioperative morbidity and efficacy of RARC compared to ORC in patients with bladder cancer.MethodsLiterature searches of Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov databases up to 10^th March 2016 were performed. The inclusion criteria for eligible studies were RCTs which compared perioperative outcomes of ORC and RARC for bladder cancer. Primary objective was perioperative and histopathological outcomes of RARC versus ORC while the secondary objective was quality of life assessment (QoL), oncological outcomes and cost analysis.ResultsFour RCTs (from 5 articles) met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 239 patients all with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics of RARC and ORC patients were evenly matched. There was no significant difference between groups in perioperative morbidity, length of stay, positive surgical margin, lymph node yield and positive lymph node status. RARC group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (p<0.001) and wound complications (p = 0.03) but required significantly longer operating time (p<0.001). QoL was not measured uniformly across trials and cost analysis was reported in one RCTs. A test for heterogeneity did highlight differences across operating time of trials suggesting that surgeon experience may influence outcomes.ConclusionsThis study does not provide evidence to support a benefit for RARC compared to ORC. These results may not have inference for RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion. Well-designed trials with appropriate endpoints conducted by equally experienced ORC and RARC surgeons will be needed to address this.     

Combined Single-Cell Profiling of lncRNAs and Functional Screening Reveals that H19 Is Pivotal for Embryonic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Development

1. Download high-res image (269KB)
2. Download full-size image

     

Within-winter flexibility in muscle and heart lipid transport and catabolism in passerine birds

Journal of Comparative Physiology B - Small birds in cold climates may show within-winter metabolic flexibility to match metabolic capacities to prevailing weather conditions. This flexibility may...     

Regulation of AR mRNA translation in response to acute AR pathway inhibition

We report a new mechanism of androgen receptor (AR) mRNA regulation and cytoprotection in response to AR pathway inhibition (ARPI) stress in prostate cancer (PCA). AR mRNA translation is coordinately regulated by RNA binding proteins, YTHDF3 and G3BP1. Under ambient conditions m6A-modified AR mRNA is bound by YTHDF3 and translationally stimulated, while m6A-unmodified AR mRNA is bound by G3BP1 and translationally repressed. When AR-regulated PCA cell lines are subjected to ARPI stress, m6A-modified AR mRNA is recruited from actively translating polysomes (PSs) to RNA-protein stress granules (SGs), leading to reduced AR mRNA translation. After ARPI stress, m6A-modified AR mRNA liquid–liquid phase separated with YTHDF3, while m6A-unmodified AR mRNA phase separated with G3BP1. Accordingly, these AR mRNA messages form two distinct YTHDF3-enriched or G3BP1-enriched clusters in SGs. ARPI-induced SG formation is cell-protective, which when blocked by YTHDF3 or G3BP1 silencing increases PCA cell death in response to ARPI stress. Interestingly, AR mRNA silencing also delays ARPI stress-induced SG formation, highlighting its supportive role in triggering this stress response. Our results define a new mechanism for stress adaptive cell survival after ARPI stress involving SG-regulated translation of AR mRNA, mediated by m6A RNA modification and their respective regulatory proteins.     

Fifteen compelling open questions in plant cell biology

As scientists, we are at least as excited about the open questions—the things we do not know—as the discoveries. Here, we asked 15 experts to describe the most compelling open questions in plant cell biology. These are their questions: How are organelle identity, domains, and boundaries maintained under the continuous flux of vesicle trafficking and membrane remodeling? Is the plant cortical microtubule cytoskeleton a mechanosensory apparatus? How are the cellular pathways of cell wall synthesis, assembly, modification, and integrity sensing linked in plants? Why do plasmodesmata open and close? Is there retrograde signaling from vacuoles to the nucleus? How do root cells accommodate fungal endosymbionts? What is the role of cell edges in plant morphogenesis? How is the cell division site determined? What are the emergent effects of polyploidy on the biology of the cell, and how are any such “rules” conditioned by cell type? Can mechanical forces trigger new cell fates in plants? How does a single differentiated somatic cell reprogram and gain pluripotency? How does polarity develop de-novo in isolated plant cells? What is the spectrum of cellular functions for membraneless organelles and intrinsically disordered proteins? How do plants deal with internal noise? How does order emerge in cells and propagate to organs and organisms from complex dynamical processes? We hope you find the discussions of these questions thought provoking and inspiring.

We asked 15 experts to address what they consider to be the most compelling open questions in plant cell biology and these are their questions.