Myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) key genes analysis in rat anti-CD28-induced immune tolerance kidney transplantation

BackgroundIn the field of transplantation, inducing immune tolerance in recipients is of great importance. Blocking co-stimulatory molecule using anti-CD28 antibody could induce tolerance in a rat kidney transplantation model. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) reveals strong immune suppressive abilities in kidney transplantation. Here we analyzed key genes of MDSCs leading to transplant tolerance in this model.MethodsMicroarray data of rat gene expression profiles under accession number {"type":"entrez-geo","attrs":{"text":"GSE28545","term_id":"28545"}}GSE28545 in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database were analyzed. Running the LIMMA package in R language, the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were found. Enrichment analysis of the DEGs was conducted in the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) database to explore gene ontology (GO) annotation and their Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways. Their protein-protein interactions (PPIs) were provided by STRING database and was visualized in Cytoscape. Hub genes were carried out by CytoHubba.ResultsThree hundred and thirty-eight DEGs were exported, including 27 upregulated and 311 downregulated genes. The functions and KEGG pathways of the DEGs were assessed and the PPI network was constructed based on the string interactions of the DEGs. The network was visualized in Cytoscape; the entire PPI network consisted of 192 nodes and 469 edges. Zap70, Cdc42, Stat1, Stat4, Ccl5 and Cxcr3 were among the hub genes.ConclusionsThese key genes, corresponding proteins and their functions may provide valuable background for both basic and clinical research and could be the direction of future studies in immune tolerance, especially those examining immunocyte-induced tolerance.     

骨盆骨折大出血救治技术与流程

由于骨盆的特殊结构,其内侧的血管网损伤导致不可压迫性出血。即使创伤中心和救治体系的建设,以及损害控制技术等发展,病死率仍然高达30%~60%。损害控制性复苏、骨盆带、外固定支架、复苏性腹主动脉内球囊阻断(REBOA)、动脉栓塞和腹膜外填塞等技术不断发展,部分已经得到普及,但迄今仍没有公认的确定性止血流程。我国正在普遍建设创伤中心,亟待制订适合我国的骨盆骨折大出血患者的救治流程,以提高救治成功率。本文阐述控制骨盆骨折大出血的外科技术和流程进展供同道参考。     

酪氨酸激酶受体RON与E-cadherin在子宫内膜异位症上的表达及意义

目的探讨酪氨酸激酶受体RON及上皮型钙粘蛋白(E-cadherin)在子宫内膜异位症(endometriosis,EMs)上的表达及意义。方法选择2017年7~12月深圳市龙岗区人民医院收治的42例EMs患者,术中分别留取新鲜异位内膜组织和在位内膜组织,随机选取子宫切除或诊断性刮宫治疗的非EMs患者42例,术中留取其正常子宫内膜组织。采用逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)检测子宫内膜组织中RON mRNA的表达,采用免疫组织化学方法检测对应42例石蜡组织中RON蛋白和E-cadherin的表达,并分析RON蛋白和E-cadherin的相关性。结果EMs异位内膜组织RON mRNA及RON蛋白阳性表达率显著高于在位内膜组织及正常子宫内膜组织(P<0.001),在位内膜组织及正常内膜组织中E-cadherin阳性表达率显著高于异位内膜组织(P<0.001),且异位内膜组织中RON mRNA及RON蛋白的表达与临床分期有关(P<0.001)。在同一标本中RON蛋白和E-cadherin表达呈负相关关系(r=-0.497,P<0.05)。结论RON的过度表达与EMs的发生发展密切相关,联合检测RON和E-cadherin的异常对判断EMs的发生发展有一定的参考价值,RON可能成为诊断治疗EMs的新靶点。     

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.     

Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.