Spontaneous generation of functional osteoclasts from synovial fluid mononuclear cells as a model of inflammatory osteoclastogenesis

In osteoimmunology, osteoclastogenesis is understood in the context of the immune system. Today, the in vitro model for osteoclastogenesis necessitates the addition of recombinant human receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa‐B ligand (RANKL) and macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (M‐CSF). The peripheral joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) are characterized by an immune‐mediated inflammation that can lead to bone destruction. Here, we evaluate spontaneous in vitro osteoclastogenesis in cultures of synovial fluid mononuclear cells (SFMCs) activated only in vivo. SFMCs were isolated and cultured for 21 days at 0.5–1.0 × 10⁶ cells/mL in culture medium. SFMCs and healthy control peripheral blood monocytes were cultured with RANKL and M‐CSF as controls. Tartrate‐resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) positive multinucleated cells were found in the SFMC cultures after 21 days. These cells expressed the osteoclast genes calcitonin receptor, cathepsin K, and integrin β3, formed lacunae on dentin plates and secreted matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9) and TRAP. Adding RANKL and M‐CSF potentiated this secretion. In conclusion, we show that SFMCs from inflamed peripheral joints can spontaneously develop into functionally active osteoclasts ex vivo. Our study provides a simple in vitro model for studying inflammatory osteoclastogenesis.     

Interhemispheric visual competition after multisensory reversal of hemianopia

Unilateral lesions of visual cortex have the secondary consequence of suppressing visual circuits in the midbrain superior colliculus (SC), collectively producing blindness in contralesional space (“hemianopia”). Recent studies have demonstrated that SC visual responses and contralesional vision can be reinstated by a non‐invasive multisensory training procedure in which spatiotemporally concordant visual‐auditory pairs are repeatedly presented within the blind hemifield. Despite this recovery of visual responsiveness, the loss of visual cortex was expected to result in permanent deficits in that hemifield, especially when visual events in both hemifields compete for attention and access to the brain's visuomotor circuitry. This was evaluated in the present study in a visual choice paradigm in which the two visual hemifields of recovered cats were simultaneously stimulated with equally valent visual targets. Surprisingly, the expected disparity was not found, and some animals even preferred stimuli presented in the previously blind hemifield. This preference persisted across multiple stimulus intensity levels and there was no indication that animals were less aware of cues in the previously blind hemifield than in its spared counterpart. Furthermore, when auditory cues were combined with visual cues, the enhanced performance they produced on a visual task was no greater in the normal than in the previously blind hemifield. These observations suggest that the multisensory rehabilitation paradigm revealed greater inherent visual information processing potential in the previously blind hemifield than was believed possible given the loss of visual cortex.     

Application of the adverse outcome pathway framework to genotoxic modes of action

In May 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee hosted a workshop to discuss whether mode of action (MOA) investigation is enhanced through the application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. As AOPs are a relatively new approach in genetic toxicology, this report describes how AOPs could be harnessed to advance MOA analysis of genotoxicity pathways using five example case studies. Each of these genetic toxicology AOPs proposed for further development includes the relevant molecular initiating events, key events, and adverse outcomes (AOs), identification and/or further development of the appropriate assays to link an agent to these events, and discussion regarding the biological plausibility of the proposed AOP. A key difference between these proposed genetic toxicology AOPs versus traditional AOPs is that the AO is a genetic toxicology endpoint of potential significance in risk characterization, in contrast to an adverse state of an organism or a population. The first two detailed case studies describe provisional AOPs for aurora kinase inhibition and tubulin binding, leading to the common AO of aneuploidy. The remaining three case studies highlight provisional AOPs that lead to chromosome breakage or mutation via indirect DNA interaction (inhibition of topoisomerase II, production of cellular reactive oxygen species, and inhibition of DNA synthesis). These case studies serve as starting points for genotoxicity AOPs that could ultimately be published and utilized by the broader toxicology community and illustrate the practical considerations and evidence required to formalize such AOPs so that they may be applied to genetic toxicity evaluation schemes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:114–134, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change

Introduction The focus in clinical pharmacy practice is and has for the last 30–35 years been on changing the role of pharmacy staff into service orientation and patient counselling. One way of doing this is by involving staff in change process and as a researcher to take part in the change process by establishing partnerships with staff. On the background of the authors’ widespread action research (AR)-based experiences, recommendations and comments for how to conduct an AR-study is described, and one of their AR-based studies illustrate the methodology and the research methods used. Methodology AR is defined as an approach to research which is based on a problem-solving relationship between researchers and clients, which aims at both solving a problem and at collaboratively generating new knowledge. Research questions relevant in AR-studies are: what was the working process in this change oriented study? What learning and/or changes took place? What challenges/pitfalls had to be overcome? What were the influence/consequences for the involved parts? When to use If you want to implement new services and want to involve staff and others in the process, an AR methodology is very suitable. The basic advantages of doing AR-based studies are grounded in their participatory and democratic basis and their starting point in problems experienced in practice. Limitations Some of the limitations in AR-studies are that neither of the participants in a project steering group are the only ones to decide. Furthermore, the collective process makes the decision-making procedures relatively complex.