Trade-offs between acquired and innate immune defenses in humans

Immune defenses provide resistance against infectious disease that is critical to survival. But immune defenses are costly, and limited resources allocated to immunity are not available for other physiological or developmental processes. We propose a framework for explaining variation in patterns of investment in two important subsystems of anti-pathogen defense: innate (non-specific) and acquired (specific) immunity. The developmental costs of acquired immunity are high, but the costs of maintenance and activation are relatively low. Innate immunity imposes lower upfront developmental costs, but higher operating costs. Innate defenses are mobilized quickly and are effective against novel pathogens. Acquired responses are less effective against novel exposures, but more effective against secondary exposures due to immunological memory. Based on their distinct profiles of costs and effectiveness, we propose that the balance of investment in innate versus acquired immunity is variable, and that this balance is optimized in response to local ecological conditions early in development. Nutritional abundance, high pathogen exposure and low signals of extrinsic mortality risk during sensitive periods of immune development should all favor relatively higher levels of investment in acquired immunity. Undernutrition, low pathogen exposure, and high mortality risk should favor innate immune defenses. The hypothesis provides a framework for organizing prior empirical research on the impact of developmental environments on innate and acquired immunity, and suggests promising directions for future research in human ecological immunology.     

The use of Trichomonas vaginalis purine nucleoside phosphorylase to activate fludarabine in the treatment of solid tumors

Treatment with fludarabine phosphate (9-β-D-arabinofuranosyl-2-F-adenine 5′-phosphate, F-araAMP) leads to regressions and cures of human tumor xenografts that express Escherichia coli purine nucleoside phosphorylase (EcPNP). This occurs despite the fact that fludarabine (F-araA) is a relatively poor substrate for EcPNP, and is cleaved to liberate 2-fluoroadenine at a rate only 0.3% that of the natural E. coli PNP substrate, adenosine. In this study, we investigated a panel of naturally occurring PNPs to identify more efficient enzymes that may be suitable for metabolizing F-araA as part of experimental cancer therapy. We show that Trichomonas vaginalis PNP (TvPNP) cleaves F-araA with a catalytic efficiency 25-fold greater than the prototypic E. coli enzyme. Cellular extracts from human glioma cells (D54) transduced with lentivirus stably expressing TvPNP (D54/TvPNP) were found to cleave F-araA at a rate similar to extracts from D54 cells expressing EcPNP, although much less enzyme was expressed per cell in the TvPNP transduced condition. As a test of safety and efficacy using TvPNP, human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (FaDu) xenografts expressing TvPNP were studied in nude mice and shown to exhibit robust tumor regressions, albeit with partial weight loss that resolved post-therapy. F-araAMP was also a very effective treatment for mice bearing D54/TvPNP xenografts in which approximately 10% of tumor cells expressed the enzyme, indicating pronounced ability to kill non-transduced tumor cells (high bystander activity). Moreover, F-araAMP demonstrated activity against D54 tumors injected with an E1, E3 deleted adenoviral vector encoding TvPNP. In that setting, despite higher F-araA cleavage activity using TvPNP, tumor responses were similar to those obtained with EcPNP, indicating factors other than F-Ade production may limit regressions of the D54 murine xenograft model. Our results establish that TvPNP is a favorable enzyme for activating F-araA, and support further studies in combination with F-araAMP for difficult-to-treat human cancers.     

Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.     

Paresthesia‐Free Spinal Nerve Root Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

ObjectiveStimulation of the dorsal spinal roots, or spinal nerve root stimulation (SNRS), is a neuromodulation modality that can target pain within specific dermatomal distributions. The use of paresthesia-free stimulation has been described with conventional dorsal column spinal cord stimulation, although has yet to be described for SNRS. This objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of paresthesia-free high-frequency (1000–1200 Hz) SNRS in the treatment of intractable, dermatomal neuropathic pain.Materials and MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed on 14 patients implanted with SNRS in varying distributions: Ten patients initially received tonic stimulation and crossed over to a paresthesia-free paradigm and four patients received only paresthesia-free stimulation. The primary outcome was reduction in pain severity (visual analog scale [VAS]), measured at baseline and follow-up to 24 months with paresthesia-free stimulation.ResultsAll 14 patients who received paresthesia-free stimulation had significant improvement in pain severity at a mean follow-up of 1.39 ± 0.15 years (VAS 7.46 at baseline vs. 3.25 at most recent follow-up, p < 0.001). Ten patients were initially treated with tonic stimulation and crossed over to paresthesia-free stimulation after a mean of 61.7 months. Baseline pain in these crossover patients was significantly improved at last follow-up with tonic stimulation (VAS 7.65 at baseline vs. 2.83 at 48 months, p < 0.001), although all patients developed uncomfortable paresthesias. There was no significant difference in pain severity between patients receiving tonic and paresthesia-free stimulation.ConclusionsWe present real-world outcomes of patients with intractable dermatomal neuropathic pain treated with paresthesia-free, high-frequency SNRS. We demonstrate its effectiveness in providing pain reduction at a level comparable to tonic SNRS up to 24 months follow-up, without producing uncomfortable paresthesias.