Reading the unique DNA methylation landscape of the brain: Non-CpG methylation,hydroxymethylation, and MeCP2

DNA methylation at CpG dinucleotides is an important epigenetic regulator common to virtually all mammalian cell types, but recent evidence indicates that during early postnatal development neuronal genomes also accumulate uniquely high levels of two alternative forms of methylation, non-CpG methylation and hydroxymethylation. Here we discuss the distinct landscape of DNA methylation in neurons, how it is established, and how it might affect the binding and function of protein readers of DNA methylation. We review studies of one critical reader of DNA methylation in the brain, the Rett syndrome protein methyl CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2), and discuss how differential binding affinity of MeCP2 for non-CpG and hydroxymethylation may affect the function of this methyl-binding protein in the nervous system.     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Keeping Secrets or Educating Others: A Dyadic Analysis of Group Entitativity’s Influence on Spouses’ Label Management Connected to AATD

In 1963, Goffman argued that forming a group based on shared stigma may provide benefits. However, there is no empirical research on whether perception that a separate, unique, coherent group exists (i.e., group entitativity) influences coping, such as educating others or secrecy, for the stigmatized individual or his or her spouse. Further, little is known about how spouses influence each other in terms of promoting the education of others about a stigmatizing condition, especially when it comes to the role of believing that stigma-based groups, to which they may both belong, exist. This study provides a step toward bridging this gap in the research by applying the label management model in efforts to understand coping for couples in which one spouse is diagnosed with genetic mutations leading to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). This study included 50 married couples in which one spouse is diagnosed with genetic mutations leading to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). We found that group entitativity related to those with AATD counterbalanced the influence of genetic stigma on spouses’ intentions to keep the diagnosis secret or to educate others about it. Intrapersonal and interpersonal influences appeared among spouses. Attention is needed on the power of creating groups for stigmatized persons and their relatives. Indeed, people live within a dynamic world of group entities, and multiple social identities including spousal and familial. While attention has been paid to the diffusion of stigmas to loved ones, less has been paid to the uplift of group entities for them.