Neutralization of Mitochondrial Superoxide by Superoxide Dismutase 2 Promotes Bacterial Clearance and Regulates Phagocyte Numbers in Zebrafish

Mitochondria are known primarily as the location of the electron transport chain and energy production in cells. More recently, mitochondria have been shown to be signaling centers for apoptosis and inflammation. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated as by-products of the electron transport chain within mitochondria significantly impact cellular signaling pathways. Because of the toxic nature of ROS, mitochondria possess an antioxidant enzyme, superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2), to neutralize ROS. If mitochondrial antioxidant enzymes are overwhelmed during severe infections, mitochondrial dysfunction can occur and lead to multiorgan failure or death. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen that can infect immunocompromised patients. Infochemicals and exotoxins associated with P. aeruginosa are capable of causing mitochondrial dysfunction. In this work, we describe the roles of SOD2 and mitochondrial ROS regulation in the zebrafish innate immune response to P. aeruginosa infection. sod2 is upregulated in mammalian macrophages and neutrophils in response to lipopolysaccharide in vitro, and sod2 knockdown in zebrafish results in an increased bacterial burden. Further investigation revealed that phagocyte numbers are compromised in Sod2-deficient zebrafish. Addition of the mitochondrion-targeted ROS-scavenging chemical MitoTEMPO rescues neutrophil numbers and reduces the bacterial burden in Sod2-deficient zebrafish. Our work highlights the importance of mitochondrial ROS regulation by SOD2 in the context of innate immunity and supports the use of mitochondrion-targeted ROS scavengers as potential adjuvant therapies during severe infections.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Intervention for arch obstruction after the Norwood procedure: Prevalence,associated factors,and practice variability

Objective

Arch obstruction after the Norwood procedure is common and contributes to mortality. We determined the prevalence, associated factors, and practice variability of arch reintervention and assessed whether arch reintervention is associated with mortality.