Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Bio Instrumentation in Experimental Life Sciences Research’ Category


Real Time Coverage of BIO 2019 International Convention, June 3-6, 2019 Philadelphia Convention Center, Philadelphia PA

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

Please follow LIVE on TWITTER using the following @ handles and # hashtags:

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

Please check daily on this OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL for updates on one of the most important BIO Conferences of the year for meeting notes, posts, as well as occasional PODCASTS.

 

The BIO International Convention is the largest global event for the biotechnology industry and attracts the biggest names in biotech, offers key networking and partnering opportunities, and provides insights and inspiration on the major trends affecting the industry. The event features keynotes and sessions from key policymakers, scientists, CEOs, and celebrities.  The Convention also features the BIO Business Forum (One-on-One Partnering), hundreds of sessions covering biotech trends, policy issues and technological innovations, and the world’s largest biotechnology exhibition – the BIO Exhibition.

The BIO International Convention is hosted by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). BIO represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products.

 

Keynote Speakers INCLUDE:

Fireside Chat with Margaret (Peggy) Hamburg, MD, Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Medicine; Chairman of the Board, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Tuesday Keynote: Siddhartha Mukherjee (Author of the bestsellers Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer and  The Gene: An Intimate History)

Fireside Chat with Jeffrey Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, COWEN

Fireside Chat with Christi Shaw, Senior Vice President and President, Lilly BIO-Medicines, Eli Lilly and Company

Wednesday Keynote: Jamie Dimon (Chairman JP Morgan Chase)

Fireside Chat with Kenneth C. Frazier, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Merck & Co., Inc.

Fireside Chat: Understanding the Voices of Patients: Unique Perspectives on Healthcare

Fireside Chat: FDA Town Hall

 

ALSO SUPERSESSIONS including:

Super Session: What’s Next: The Landscape of Innovation in 2019 and Beyond

Super Session: Falling in Love with Science: Championing Science for Everyone, Everywhere

Super Session: Digital Health in Practice: A Conversation with Ameet Nathawani, Chief Digital Officer, Chief Medical Falling in Love with Science: Championing Science for Everyone, Everywhere

Super Session: Realizing the Promise of Gene Therapies for Patients Around the World

Super Session: Biotech’s Contribution to Innovation: Current and Future Drivers of Success

Super Session: The Art & Science of R&D Innovation and Productivity

Super Session: Dealmaker’s Intentions: 2019 Market Outlook

Super Session: The State of the Vaccine Industry: Stimulating Sustainable Growth

 

See here for full AGENDA

Link for Registration: https://convention.bio.org/register/

The BIO International Convention is literally where hundreds of deals and partnerships have been made over the years.

 

BIO performs many services for members, but none of them are more visible than the BIO International Convention. The BIO International Convention helps BIO fulfill its mission to help grow the global biotech industry. Profits from the BIO International Convention are returned to the biotechnology industry by supporting BIO programs and initiatives. BIO works throughout the year to create a policy environment that enables the industry to continue to fulfill its vision of bettering the world through biotechnology innovation.

The key benefits of attending the BIO International Convention are access to global biotech and pharma leaders via BIO One-on-One Partnering, exposure to industry though-leaders with over 1,500 education sessions at your fingertips, and unparalleled networking opportunities with 16,000+ attendees from 74 countries.

In addition, we produce BIOtechNOW, an online blog chronicling ‘innovations transforming our world’ and the BIO Newsletter, the organization’s bi-weekly email newsletter. Subscribe to the BIO Newsletter.

 

Membership with the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO)

BIO has a diverse membership that is comprised of  companies from all facets of biotechnology. Corporate R&D members range from entrepreneurial companies developing a first product to Fortune 100 multinationals. The majority of our members are small companies – 90 percent have annual revenues of $25 million or less, reflecting the broader biotechnology industry. Learn more about how you can save with BIO Membership.

BIO also represents academic centers, state and regional biotech associations and service providers to the industry, including financial and consulting firms.

  • 66% R&D-Intensive Companies *Of those: 89% have annual revenues under $25 million,  4% have annual revenues between $25 million and $1 billion, 7% have annual revenues over $1 billion.
  • 16% Nonprofit/Academic
  • 11% Service Providers
  • 7% State/International Affiliate Organizations

Other posts on LIVE CONFERENCE COVERAGE using Social Media on this OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL and OTHER Conferences Covered please see the following link at https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/

 

Notable Conferences Covered THIS YEAR INCLUDE: (see full list from 2013 at this link)

  • Koch Institute 2019 Immune Engineering Symposium, January 28-29, 2019, Kresge Auditorium, MIT

https://calendar.mit.edu/event/immune_engineering_symposium_2019#.XBrIDc9Kgcg

http://kochinstituteevents.cvent.com/events/koch-institute-2019-immune-engineering-symposium/event-summary-8d2098bb601a4654991060d59e92d7fe.aspx?dvce=1

 

  • 2019 MassBio’s Annual Meeting, State of Possible Conference ​, March 27 – 28, 2019, Royal Sonesta, Cambridge

http://files.massbio.org/file/MassBio-State-Of-Possible-Conference-Agenda-Feb-22-2019.pdf

 

  • World Medical Innovation Forum, Partners Innovations, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | APRIL 8–10, 2019 | Westin, BOSTON

https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/agenda-list/

https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/

 

  • 18th Annual 2019 BioIT, Conference & Expo, April 16-18, 2019, Boston, Seaport World Trade Center, Track 5 Next-Gen Sequencing Informatics – Advances in Large-Scale Computing

http://www.giiconference.com/chi653337/

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2019/04/22/18th-annual-2019-bioit-conference-expo-april-16-18-2019-boston-seaport-world-trade-center-track-5-next-gen-sequencing-informatics-advances-in-large-scale-computing/

 

  • Translating Genetics into Medicine, April 25, 2019, 8:30 AM – 6:00 PM, The New York Academy of Sciences, 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich St Fl 40, New York

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2019/04/25/translating-genetics-into-medicine-april-25-2019-830-am-600-pm-the-new-york-academy-of-sciences-7-world-trade-center-250-greenwich-st-fl-40-new-york/

 

  • 13th Annual US-India BioPharma & Healthcare Summit, May 9, 2019, Marriott, Cambridge

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2019/04/30/13th-annual-biopharma-healthcare-summit-thursday-may-9-2019/

 

  • 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics: Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies, May 17, 2019, Harvard Law School

http://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2019-petrie-flom-center-annual-conference

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2019/01/11/2019-petrie-flom-center-annual-conference-consuming-genetics-ethical-and-legal-considerations-of-new-technologies/

 

  • 2019 Koch Institute Symposium – Machine Learning and Cancer, June 14, 2019, 8:00 AM-5:00 PM  ET MIT Kresge Auditorium, 48 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2019/03/12/2019-koch-institute-symposium-machine-learning-and-cancer-june-14-2019-800-am-500-pmet-mit-kresge-auditorium-48-massachusetts-ave-cambridge-ma/

 

Read Full Post »


Print’s Technology Used to Help Produce 3D Printed Glass Molds for Droplet Microfluidic Chips

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

Scientists from Leibniz HKI, Friedrich Schiller University, the Ilmenau University of Technology, FEMTOprint  and the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Optics and Precision Engineering fabricated 3D polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) chips for droplet microfluidics by using FEMTOprint’s innovative glass technology to make 3D printed glass molds. The 3D printed glass mold can pack 192 nozzles into a design that’s 25 mm long and 4 mm wide, including all inlets and outlets, which produce monodisperse droplets of 70 µm. It’s also easy to scale this structure so it is capable of holding 1,000 nozzles in a 6.5 cm structure.

FEMTOprint’s direct writing process makes it possible to produce microfluidic designs with diverse levels, continuously changing heights, and complex 3D shapes, along with sub-micrometric resolution. 3D printed glass molds are used to combine the replication and ease of production that soft lithography is capable of with the advantages of high-resolution prototyping. Moreover, it can facilitate fabrication of multilevel structures even ones with gradients of confinement, which can make important droplet microfluidic operations better.

This technique, paired with simple polydimethylsiloxane replica molding, can offer users with a solution for non-specialized and specialized labs in order to customize and expand microfluidic experimentation. In order to leverage the immense potential of droplet microfluidics, the process of chip design and fabrication needs to be simplified. While the PDMS replica molding has significantly transformed the chip-production process, its dependence on 2D-limited photolithography has limited the design possibilities, as well as further dissemination of microfluidics to non-specialized labs. The technique permits new possibilities in the university, meanwhile as of right now, no other methodology exists except this one that allows architectures with structures from 15 µm to hundreds of micrometers in all dimensions to be produced.

According to FEMTOprint, 3D printed glass structures characterize a negative part, and can be used as chips by bonding them to a PDMS slab or glass, which makes it possible to utilize structures, like mirrors, lenses, and filters, that replica molding cannot recreate. Chip fabrication doesn’t have to be the holdup for non-microfluidic labs adopting microfluidic approaches, instead it should be looked at as a way to device novel functionalities, like optical fiber incorporation for fluorescence detection.

 SOURCE

https://www.industrial-lasers.com/articles/2018/07/3d-printing-creates-molds-for-droplet-microfluidic-chips.html

Read Full Post »


CABG: a Superior Revascularization Modality to PCI in Patients with poor LVF, Multivessel disease and Diabetes, Similar Risk of Stroke between 31 days and 5 years, post intervention

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 9/4/2019

SYNTAX at 10 Years: Bypass vs PCI Still a Toss-Up Overall

But CABG beats stenting for important subgroups

SOURCE

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/esc/81944?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2019-09-04&eun=g99985d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%202019-09-04&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_Active

Lancet Study, 2/2018

Interpretation

CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

JACC Study, 7/2018

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.

European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Study, 6/2018

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a longer length of hospital stay, patients with impaired LVF requiring intervention for coronary artery disease experienced a greater post-procedural survival benefit if they received CABG compared to PCI. We have demonstrated this at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 8 years following revascularization. At present, CABG remains a superior revascularization modality to PCI in patients with poor LVF.

 

New Studies on Clinical Outcomes from two Revascularization Strategies: CABG and PCI

 

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72(4):386-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071.

Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are used for coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease. Stroke is among the most feared complications of revascularization. Due to its infrequency, studies with large numbers of patients are required to detect differences in stroke rates between CABG and PCI.

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to compare rates of stroke after CABG and PCI and the impact of procedural stroke on long-term mortality.

METHODS:

We performed a collaborative individual patient-data pooled analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents; ERACI II (Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease) (n = 450), ARTS (Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study) (n = 1,205), MASS II (Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study) (n = 408), SoS (Stent or Surgery) trial (n = 988), SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial (n = 1,800), PRECOMBAT (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) trial (n = 600), FREEDOM (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes) trial (n = 1,900), VA CARDS (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) (n = 198), BEST (Bypass Surgery Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) (n = 880), NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trial (n = 1,184), and EXCEL (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial (n = 1,905). The 30-day and 5-year stroke rates were compared between CABG and PCI using a random effects Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by trial. The impact of stroke on 5-year mortality was explored.

RESULTS:

The analysis included 11,518 patients randomly assigned to PCI (n = 5,753) or CABG (n = 5,765) with a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.4 years during which a total of 293 strokes occurred. At 30 days, the rate of stroke was 0.4% after PCI and 1.1% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to 0.53; p < 0.001). At 5-year follow-up, stroke remained significantly lower after PCI than after CABG (2.6% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97; p = 0.027). Rates of stroke between 31 days and 5 years were comparable: 2.2% after PCI versus 2.1% after CABG (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.38; p = 0.72). No significant interactions between treatment and baseline clinical or angiographic variables for the 5-year rate of stroke were present, except for diabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 4.9%) and nondiabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 2.4%) (p for interaction = 0.004). Patients who experienced a stroke within 30 days of the procedure had significantly higher 5-year mortality versus those without a stroke, both after PCI (45.7% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001) and CABG (41.5% vs. 8.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.

KEYWORDS:

coronary artery bypass graft; left main; mortality; multivessel; percutaneous coronary intervention; stenting; stroke

PMID:
30025574
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071

 

Lancet Study

Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, Ahn JM, Boersma E, Christiansen EH, Domanski MJ, Farkouh ME, Flather M, Fuster V, Hlatky MA, Holm NR, Hueb WA, Kamalesh M, Kim YH, Mäkikallio T, Mohr FW, Papageorgiou G, Park SJ, Rodriguez AE, Sabik JF, Stables RH, Stone GW, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018 Feb 22 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9. PMID: 29478841

Summary

Background

Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies.

Methods

We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics.

Findings

We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06–1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09–1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19–1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86–1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87–1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score.

Interpretation

CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

SOURCE

European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Study, 6/2018

 

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jun 22. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy236. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of the survival between coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with poor left ventricular function (ejection fraction <30%): a propensity-matched analysis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Existing evidence comparing the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with poor left ventricular function (LVF) is sparse and flawed. This is largely due to patients with poor LVF being underrepresented in major research trials and the outdated nature of some studies that do not consider drug-eluting stent PCI.

METHODS:

Following strict inclusion criteria, 717 patients who underwent revascularization by CABG or PCI between 2002 and 2015 were enrolled. All patients had poor LVF (defined by ejection fraction <30%). By employing a propensity score analysis, 134 suitable matches (67 CABG and 67 PCI) were identified. Several outcomes were evaluated, in the matched population, using data extracted from national registry databases.

RESULTS:

CABG patients required a longer length of hospital stay post-revascularization compared to PCI in the propensity-matched population, 7 days (lower-upper quartile; 6-12) and 2 days (lower-upper quartile; 1-6), respectively (Mood’s median test, P = 0.001). Stratified Cox-regression proportional-hazards analysis of the propensity-matched population found that PCI patients experienced a higher adjusted 8-year mortality rate (hazard ratio 3.291, 95% confidence interval 1.776-6.101; P < 0.001). This trend was consistent amongst urgent cases of revascularization: patients with 3 or more vessels with coronary artery disease and patients where complete revascularization was achieved. Although sub-analyses found no difference between survival distributions of on-pump versus off-pump CABG (log-rank P = 0.726), both modes of CABG were superior to PCI (stratified log-rank P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite a longer length of hospital stay, patients with impaired LVF requiring intervention for coronary artery disease experienced a greater post-procedural survival benefit if they received CABG compared to PCI. We have demonstrated this at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 8 years following revascularization. At present, CABG remains a superior revascularization modality to PCI in patients with poor LVF.

Read Full Post »


Stanford University researchers have developed a scanner that unites optical, radioluminescence, and photoacoustic imaging to evaluate for Thin-Cap Fibro Atheroma (TCFA)

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, RN

 

Early diagnosis and treatment could save lives by preventing the progression, and subsequent rupture, of these plaques. That is precisely why researchers designed the Circumferential-Intravascular-Radioluminescence-Photoacoustic-Imaging (CIRPI) system, which allows not just high-acuity optical imaging via beta-sensitive probe, but also radioluminescent marking inside the artery to determine the extent of inflammation. Photoacoustic imaging also provides information about the often-complex biological makeup of the plaques (how much is calcified or comprised of cholesterol or triglycerides).

SOURCE

https://www.mdtmag.com/news/2017/06/pet-imaging-atherosclerosis-reveals-risk-plaque-rupture?cmpid=horizontalcontent

RELATED READS

Read Full Post »


June 4, 2018 – Department of Defense Medical Innovation and Biodefense Forum, BIO 2018! at Boston Convention & Exhibition Center

Announcement

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN,

https://mybio.org/profile/member/2029564?profile_tabs=profile

Founder and Director of LPBI Group will be in attendance covering the event in REAL TIME

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/05/26/bio-2018-june-4-7-2018-at-boston-convention-exhibition-center/

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

for

#BIO2018

@BIOConvention

  • How DoD can assist Industry to commercialize technologies
  • How the coordination in the Infectious disease takes place
  • Manufacturing for DoD
  • Infrastructure to manage across Government RFP Process
  • Devices requires detailed engineering for use in Field hospitals
  • Regulatory, Scheduling and Engineering problems
  • Development is for all the Forces of the US and for all the Forces of US Allies — design for CIvilian first respnders as well
  • Some partners are commercial Partners, they need to approach DoD with novel product concept
  • FDA approved vs Right to Try – DoD uses both
  • Small business Program, success in bringing product to market
  • 20 years ago: Communities of interest – 20 orgs community common goals in Health Care, rehabilitation after coming home,
  • MROC – Conference in Florida DoD to explain the Public the process of engagement with Do
  • Interagency partnership
  • DoD starts with good ideas, concept studies – innovators
  • Collaborations with Academia, we are available to be approached
  • DoD will partner with small businesses to avoid the Regulatory process  – to save time and resources in the commercialization process
  • How a civilian concept FITS the needs of DoD
  • Sustaining an innovation along the years
  • Need for small business to approach DoD to make the contact
  • Where is a small business in the Development cycle? DoD can help calibrate
  • A System of Systems: Diagnostics drive decisions
  • develop partnerships in consortia
  • Six month to vaccinate 17,000 with a Vaccine for EBOLA
  • DoD of respective countries are collaborating with US DoD
  • Threat environment changes over time vs modify known threats
  • Monoclonal antibody – the Industry developed the manufacturing technology and DoD is user of Industry products
  • All research for the Joint Force, Chemical, Biological,
  • Short time to market solutions are of interest for DoD to identify
  • Military relevance: Key for funding
  • Announcements of DoD on WHAT PROBLEMS DoD tries to solve
  • DoD and HHS — aligned for common solution to avoid redundancy
  • Development of profilaxix is very expensive, DoD budget has competing goals: Next soldier suit,
  • FDA and DoD need to collaborate for DoDs needs
  • Order transaction authority,
  • Congress set aside a budget for small businesses to use accounting systems for Small business to interact with DoD
  • How to get a digital signal to the brain: Expertise in many disciplines: EE, Ethomology
  • Delivery, test , evaluation, develop sensors, IS to manage threats, Diagnostics,
  • How to do Business with Industry?
  • Congress asked for a Consorsium to engage with Industry in a different form than we engaged before
  • Partnerships for out of the box thinking and going quickly – the appetite for is greater then evr before
  • Successful area: Diagnostics – adoptation of existing diagnostics for military applications
  • Platform technologies: Metabolic, Vaccines,
  • Leverage existing technologies to solve DoD concerns
  • involved with MCS help Government to learn how to build their Office
  • Genomic, Proteomics, therapeutics candidates, Prophylaxis as Vaccines
  • In the event of an outbreak: clinicians, 1st responders
Panel 2: Clay Holloway, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Joint Project Manager, Medical Countermeasure Systems (JPM-MCS)
  • Partnering is key
  • capability requirements: broad spectrum capabilities
  • Decision tools to be used at studies for data analysis for decision making
  • Risks in partnership: DoD needs to evaluate ideas for next generation to SKIP one generation
  • How to used different agreement strategically? Streamline DoD Methods
  • Have continuous access to assets

 

LOCATION

Read Full Post »


Energy dysfunction detected in skin cells a possible additional explanation of the Alzheimer’s disease’s hallmark Dementia

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

A team at Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital tested the cells of late-onset Alzheimer’s patients and found malfunctions in their energy production, including problems with the health of their mitochondria, the cellular power plants that provide most of their energy.

The brain, because it is the body’s most energy-hungry organ, demanding as much as 20 times the energy of other tissues. Such a malfunction, he said, could damage or kill nerve cells and help explain the cognitive decline associated with the disease.

McLean researchers detect dysfunction in cells’ energy production in late-onset patients

“Although people hope with a lot of these conditions we study — normal or abnormal — that there are going to be simple answers … it’s never simple, it’s always all kinds of factors interacting to determine whether you get lucky or not, whether you get sick or not,” Cohen said.

The next step, Cohen said, will be to do a similar study on the neurons and other brain cells of Alzheimer’s patients, to see whether the energy dysfunction detected in skin cells is replicated there. Even if medical understanding of the disease remains imperfect, Cohen said the ultimate hope is to find an intervention that interrupts Alzheimer’s most devastating effects.

“You don’t have to fix everything to keep somebody from getting sick,” Cohen said. “The reason somebody gets sick is you’re unlucky five different ways and it all combines to tip you over the edge. Maybe you only need to fix one of them and you don’t tip over the edge anymore.”

SOURCE

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/11/new-clues-to-alzheimers-disease/

Other related articles on Mitochondria’s functions published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Search all +5,200 Journal articles for “Mitochondria”

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=Mitochondria

Proteomics, Metabolomics, Signaling Pathways, and Cell Regulation – Articles of Note, LPBI Group’s Scientists @ http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proteomics-metabolomics-signaling-pathways-cell-lev-ari-phd-rn/

Read Full Post »


The Role of Exosomes in Metabolic Regulation

Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

On 9/25/2017, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN commissioned Dr. Larry H. Bernstein to write a short article on the following topic reported on 9/22/2017 in sciencemission.com

 

We are publishing, below the new article created by Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP.

 

Background

During the period between 9/2015  and 6/2017 the Team at Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI)  has launched an R&D effort lead by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN in conjunction with SBH Sciences, Inc. headed by Dr. Raphael Nir.

This effort, also known as, “DrugDiscovery @LPBI Group”  has yielded several publications on EXOSOMES on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal. Among them are included the following:

 

QIAGEN – International Leader in NGS and RNA Sequencing, 10/08/2017

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

cell-free DNA (cfDNA) tests could become the ultimate “Molecular Stethoscope” that opens up a whole new way of practicing Medicine, 09/08/2017

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Detecting Multiple Types of Cancer With a Single Blood Test (Human Exomes Galore), 07/02/2017

Reporter and Curator: Irina Robu, PhD

 

Exosomes: Natural Carriers for siRNA Delivery, 04/24/2017

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

One blood sample can be tested for a comprehensive array of cancer cell biomarkers: R&D at WPI, 01/05/2017

Curator: Marzan Khan, B.Sc

 

SBI’s Exosome Research Technologies, 12/29/2016

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

A novel 5-gene pancreatic adenocarcinoma classifier: Meta-analysis of transcriptome data – Clinical Genomics Research @BIDMC, 12/28/2016

Curator: Tilda Barliya, PhD

 

Liquid Biopsy Chip detects an array of metastatic cancer cell markers in blood – R&D @Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Micro and Nanotechnology Lab, 12/28/2016

Reporters: Tilda Barliya, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Exosomes – History and Promise, 04/28/2016

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Exosomes, 11/17/2015

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Liquid Biopsy Assay May Predict Drug Resistance, 11/16/2015

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Glypican-1 identifies cancer exosomes, 10/31/2015

Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Circulating Biomarkers World Congress, March 23-24, 2015, Boston: Exosomes, Microvesicles, Circulating DNA, Circulating RNA, Circulating Tumor Cells, Sample Preparation, 03/24/2015

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Cambridge Healthtech Institute’s Second Annual Exosomes and Microvesicles as Biomarkers and Diagnostics Conference, March 16-17, 2015 in Cambridge, MA, 03/17, 2015

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

The newly created think-piece on the relationship between regulatory functions of Exosomes and Metabolic processes is developed conceptually, below.

 

The Role of Exosomes in Metabolic Regulation

Author: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

We have had more than a half century of research into the genetic code and transcription leading to abundant work on RNA and proteomics. However, more recent work in the last two decades has identified RNA interference in siRNA. These molecules may be found in the circulation, but it has been a challenge to find their use in therapeutics. Exosomes were first discovered in the 1980s, but only recently there has been a huge amount of research into their origin, structure and function. Exosomes are 30–120 nm endocytic membrane-bound extracellular vesicles (EVs)(1-23) , and more specifically multiple vesicle bodies (MVBs) by a budding process from invagination of the outer cell membrane that carry microRNA (miRNA), and have structures composed of protein and lipids (1,23-27 ). EVs are the membrane vesicles secreted by eukaryotic cells for intracellular communication by transferring the proteins, lipids, and RNA under various physiologic conditions as well as during the disease stage. EVs also act as a signalosomes in many biological processes. Inward budding of the plasma membrane forms small vesicles that fuse. Intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) are formed by invagination of the limiting endosomal membrane during the maturation process of early endosome.

EVs are the MVBs secreted that serve in intracellular communication by transferring a cargo consisting of proteins, lipids, and RNA under various physiologic conditions (4, 23). Exosome-mediated miRNA transfer between cells is considered to be necessary for intercellular signaling and exosome-associated miRNAs in biofluids (23). Exosomes carry various molecular constituents of their cell of origin, including proteins, lipids, mRNAs, and microRNAs (miRNAs) (. They are released from many cell types, such as dendritic cells (DCs), lymphocytes, platelets, mast cells, epithelial cells, endothelial cells, and neurons, and can be found in most bodily fluids including blood, urine, saliva, amniotic fluid, breast milk, hydrothoracic fluid, and ascitic fluid, as well as in culture medium of most cell types.Exosomes have also been shown to be involved in noncoding RNA surveillance machinery in generating antibody diversity (24). There are also a vast number of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and enhancer RNAs (eRNAs) that accumulate R-loop structures upon RNA exosome ablation, thereby, resolving deleterious DNA/RNA hybrids arising from active enhancers and distal divergent eRNA-expressing elements (lncRNA-CSR) engaged in long-range DNA interactions (25). RNA exosomes are large multimeric 3′-5′ exo- and endonucleases representing the central RNA 3′-end processing factor and are implicated in processing, quality control, and turnover of both coding and noncoding RNAs. They are large macromolecular cages that channel RNA to the ribonuclease sites (29). A major interest has been developed to characterize of exosomal cargo, which includes numerous non-randomly packed proteins and nucleic acids (1). Moreover, exosomes play an active role in tumorigenesis, metastasis, and response to therapy through the transfer of oncogenes and onco-miRNAs between cancer cells and the tumor stroma. Blood cells and the vascular endothelium is also exosomal shedding, which has significance for cardiovascular,   neurologicological disorders, stroke, and antiphospholipid syndrome (1). Dysregulation of microRNAs and the affected pathways is seen in numerous pathologies their expression can reflect molecular processes of tumor onset and progression qualifying microRNAs as potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers (30).

Exosomes are secreted by many cells like B lymphocytes and dendritic cells of hematopoietic and non-hematopoietic origin viz. platelets, Schwann cells, neurons, mast cells, cytotoxic T cells, oligodendrocytes, intestinal epithelial cells were also found to be releasing exosomes (4). They are engaged in complex functions like persuading immune response as the exosomes secreted by antigen presenting cells activate T cells (4). They all have a common set of proteins e.g. Rab family of GTPases, Alix and ESCRT (required for transport) protein and they maintain their cytoskeleton dynamics and participate in membrane fusion. However, they are involved in retrovirus disease pathology as a result of recruitment of the host`s endosomal compartments in order to generate viral vesicles, and they can either spread or limit an infection based on the type of pathogen and its target cells (5).

Upon further consideration, it is understandable how this growing biological work on exosomes has enormous significance for laboratory diagnostics (1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17-20, 23,30-41) . They are released from many cell types, such as dendritic cells (DCs), lymphocytes, platelets, mast cells, epithelial cells, endothelial cells, and neurons, and can be found in most bodily fluids including blood, urine, saliva, amniotic fluid, breast milk, thoracic and abdominal effusions, and ascitic fluid (1). The involvement of exosomes in disease is broad, and includes: cancer, autoimmune and infectious disease, hematologic disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and cardiovascular disease. Proteins frequently identified in exosomes include membrane transporters and fusion proteins (e.g., GTPases, annexins, and flotillin), heat shock proteins (e.g., HSC70), tetraspanins (e.g., CD9, CD63, and CD81), MVB biogenesis proteins (e.g., alix and TSG101), and lipid-related proteins and phospholipases. The exosomal lipid composition has been thoroughly analyzed in exosomes secreted from several cell types including DCs and mast cells, reticulocytes, and B-lymphocytes (1). Dysregulation of microRNAs of pathways observed in numerous pathologies (5, 10, 12, 21, 27, 35, 37) including cancers (30), particularly, colon, pancreas, breast, liver, brain, lung (2, 6, 17-20, 30, 33-36, 38, 39). Following these considerations, it is important that we characterize the content of exosomal cargo to gain clues to their biogenesis, targeting, and cellular effects which may lead to identification of biomarkers for disease diagnosis, prognosis and response to treatment (42).

We might continue in pursuit of a particular noteworthy exosome, the NLRP3 inflammasome, which is activated by a variety of external or host-derived stimuli, thereby, initiating an inflammatory response through caspase-1 activation, resulting in inflammatory cytokine IL-1b maturation and secretion (43).
Inflammasomes are multi-protein signaling complexes that activate the inflammatory caspases and the maturation of interleukin-1b. The NLRP3 inflammasome is linked with human autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases (44). This makes the NLRP3 inflammasome a promising target for anti-inflammatory therapies. The NLRP3 inflammasome is activated in response to a variety of signals that indicate tissue damage, metabolic stress, and infection (45). Upon activation, the NLRP3 inflammasome serves as a platform for activation of the cysteine protease caspase-1, which leads to the processing and secretion of the proinflammatory cytokines interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and IL-18. Heritable and acquired inflammatory diseases are both characterized by dysregulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation (45).
Receptors of innate immunity recognize conserved moieties associated with either cellular damage [danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs)] or invading organisms [pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)](45). Either chronic stimulation or overwhelming tissue damage is injurious and responsible for the pathology seen in a number of autoinflammatory and autoimmune disorders, such as arthritis and diabetes. The nucleotide-binding domain leucine-rich repeat (LRR)-containing receptors (NLRs) are PRRs are found intracellularly and they share a unique domain architecture. It consists of a central nucleotide binding and oligomerization domain called the NACHT domain that is located between an N-terminal effector domain and a C-terminal LRR domain (45). The NLR family members NLRP1, NLRP3, and NLRC4 are capable of forming multiprotein complexes called inflammasomes when activated.

The (NLRP3) inflammasome is important in chronic airway diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease because the activation results, in pro-IL-1β processing and the secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-1β (46). It has been proposed that Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by invading pathogens may prove cell type-specific in exacerbations of airway inflammation in asthma (46). First, NLRP3 interacts with the adaptor protein ASC by sensing microbial pathogens and self-danger signals. Then pro-caspase-1 is recruited and the large protein complex called the NLRP3 inflammasome is formed. This is followed by autocleavage and activation of caspase-1, after which pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 are converted into their mature forms. Ion fluxes disrupt membrane integrity, and also mitochondrial damage both play key roles in NLRP3 inflammasome activation (47). Depletion of mitochondria as well as inhibitors that block mitochondrial respiration and ROS production prevented NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Futhermore, genetic ablation of VDAC channels (namely VDAC1 and VDAC3) that are located on the mitochondrial outer membrane and that are responsible for exchanging ions and metabolites with the cytoplasm, leads to diminished mitochondrial (mt) ROS production and inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome activation (47). Inflammasome activation not only occurs in immune cells, primarily macrophages and dendritic cells, but also in kidney cells, specifically the renal tubular epithelium. The NLRP3 inflammasome is probably involved in the pathogenesis of acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, diabetic nephropathy and crystal-related nephropathy (48). The inflammasome also plays a role in autoimmune kidney disease. IL-1 blockade and two recently identified specific NLRP3 inflammasome blockers, MCC950 and β-hydroxybutyrate, may prove to have value in the treatment of inflammasome-mediated conditions.

Autophagosomes derived from tumor cells are referred to as defective ribosomal products in blebs (DRibbles). DRibbles mediate tumor regression by stimulating potent T-cell responses and, thus, have been used as therapeutic cancer vaccines in multiple preclinical cancer models (49). It has been found that DRibbles could induce a rapid differentiation of monocytes and DC precursor (pre-DC) cells into functional APCs (49). Consequently, DRibbles could potentially induce strong innate immune responses via multiple pattern recognition receptors. This explains why DRibbles might be excellent antigen carriers to induce adaptive immune responses to both tumor cells and viruses. This suggests that isolated autophagosomes (DRibbles) from antigen donor cells activate inflammasomes by providing the necessary signals required for IL-1β production.

The Hsp90 system is characterized by a cohort of co-chaperones that bind to Hsp90 and affect its function (50). The co-chaperones enable Hsp90 to chaperone structurally and functionally diverse client proteins. Sahasrabudhe et al. (50) show that the nature of the client protein dictates the contribution of a co-chaperone to its maturation. The study reveals the general importance of the cochaperone Sgt1 (50). In addition to Hsp90, we have to consider Hsp60. Adult cardiac myocytes release heat shock protein (HSP)60 in exosomes. Extracellular HSP60, when not in exosomes, causes cardiac myocyte apoptosis via the activation of Toll-like receptor 4. the protein content of cardiac exosomes differed significantly from other types of exosomes in the literature and contained cytosolic, sarcomeric, and mitochondrial proteins (21).

A new Protein Organic Solvent Precipitation (PROSPR) method efficiently isolates the EV repertoire from human biological samples. Proteomic profiling of PROSPR-enriched CNS EVs indicated that > 75 % of the proteins identified matched previously reported exosomal and microvesicle cargoes. In addition lipidomic characterization of enriched CNS vesicles identified previously reported EV-specific lipid families and novel lipid isoforms not previously detected in human EVs. The characterization of these structures from central nervous system (CNS) tissues is relevant to current neuroscience, especially to advance the understanding of neurodegeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease (PD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)(15). In addition, study of EVs in brain will enable characterization of the degenerative posttranslational modifications (DPMs) occurring in those proteins.
Neurodegenerative disease is characterized by dysregulation because of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD), both neurodegenerative diseases are associated with the NLRP3 inflammasome. PD is characterized by accumulation of Lewy bodies (LB) formed by a-synuclein (aSyn) aggregation. A recent study revealed that aSyn induces synthesis of pro-IL-1b by an interaction with TLR2 and activates NLRP3 inflammasome resulting in caspase-1 activation and IL-1b maturation in human primary monocytes (43). In addition mitophagy downregulates NLRP3 inflammasome activation by eliminating damaged mitochondria, blocking NLRP3 inflammasome activating signals. It is notable that in this aberrant activation mitophagy downregulates NLRP3 inflammasome activation by eliminating damaged mitochondria, blocking NLRP3 inflammasome activating signals (43).

REFERENCES

  1. Lin J, Li J, Huang B, Liu J, Chen X. Exosomes: Novel Biomarkers for Clinical Diagnosis. Scie World J 2015; Article ID 657086, 8 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/657086
  2. Kahlert C, Melo SA, Protopopov A, Tang J, Seth S, et al. Identification of Double-stranded Genomic DNA Spanning All Chromosomes with Mutated KRAS and p53 DNA in the Serum Exosomes of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer. J Biol Chem 2014; 289: 3869-3875. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C113.532267.
  3. Lässer C, Eldh M, Lötvall J. Isolation and Characterization of RNA-Containing Exosomes. J. Vis. Exp. 2012; 59, e3037. doi:10.3791/3037(2012).
  4. Kaur A, Leishangthem GD, Bhat P, et al. Role of Exosomes in Pathology – A Review. Journal of Pathology and Toxicology 2014; 1: 07-11
  5. Hosseini HM, Fooladi AAI, Nourani MR and Ghanezadeh F. The Role of Exosomes in Infectious Diseases. Inflammation & Allergy – Drug Targets 2013; 12:29-37.
  6. Ciregia F, Urbani A and Palmisano G. Extracellular Vesicles in Brain Tumors and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2017;10:276. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00276
  7. Zhang B, Yin Y, Lai RC, Lim SK. Immunotherapeutic potential of extracellular vesicles. Front Immunol (2014)
  8. Kowal J, Tkach M, Théry C. Biogenesis and secretion of exosomes. Current Opin in Cell Biol 2014 Aug; 29: 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2014.05.004
  9. McKelvey KJ, Powell KL, Ashton AW, Morris JM and McCracken SA. Exosomes: Mechanisms of Uptake. J Circ Biomark, 2015; 4:7   DOI: 10.5772/61186
  10. Xiao T, Zhang W, Jiao B, Pan C-Z, Liu X and Shen L. The role of exosomes in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’ disease. Translational Neurodegen 2017; 6:3. DOI 10.1186/s40035-017-0072-x
  11. Gonzales PA, Pisitkun T, Hoffert JD, et al. Large-Scale Proteomics and Phosphoproteomics of Urinary Exosomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20: 363–379. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2008040406
  12. Waldenström A, Ronquist G. Role of Exosomes in Myocardial Remodeling. Circ Res. 2014; 114:315-324.
  13. Xin H, Li Y and Chopp M. Exosomes/miRNAs as mediating cell-based therapy of stroke. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 10 Nov, 2014; 8(377) doi: 10.3389/fncel.2014.00377
  14. Wang S, Zhang L, Wan S, Cansiz S, Cui C, et al. Aptasensor with Expanded Nucleotide Using DNA Nanotetrahedra for Electrochemical Detection of Cancerous Exosomes. ACS Nano, 2017; 11(4):3943–3949 DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b00373
  15. Gallart-Palau X, Serra A, Sze SK. (2016) Enrichment of extracellular vesicles from tissues of the central nervous system by PROSPR. Mol Neurodegener 11(1):41.
  16. Simpson RJ, Jensen SS, Lim JW. Proteomic profiling of exosomes: current perspectives. Proteomics. 2008 Oct; 8(19):4083-99. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200800109.
  17. Sandfeld-Paulsen R, Aggerholm-Pedersen N, Bæk R, Jakobs KR, et al. Exosomal proteins as prognostic biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Onc 2016 Dec; 10(10):1595-1602.
  18. Li W, Li C, Zhou T, et al. Role of exosomal proteins in cancer diagnosis. Molecular Cancer 2017; 16:145 DOI 10.1186/s12943-017-0706-8
  19. Zhang W, Xia W, Lv Z, Xin Y, Ni C, Yang L. Liquid Biopsy for Cancer: Circulating Tumor Cells, Circulating Free DNA or Exosomes? Cell Physiol Biochem 2017; 41:755-768. DOI: 10.1159/00045873
  20. Thakur BK ,…, Williams C, Rodriguez-Barrueco R, Silva JM, Zhang W, et al. Double-stranded DNA in exosomes: a novel biomarker in cancer detection. Cell Research 2014 June; 24(6):766-769. doi:10.1038/cr.2014.44.
  21. Malik ZA, Kott KS, Poe AJ, Kuo T, Chen L, Ferrara KW, Knowlton AA. Cardiac myocyte exosomes: stability, HSP60, and proteomics. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 304: H954–H965, 2013. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00835.2012.
  22. De Toro J, Herschlik L, Waldner C and Mongini C. Emerging roles of exosomes in normal and pathological conditions: new insights for diagnosis and therapeutic applications. Front. Immunol. 2015; 6:203. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00203
  23. Chevilleta JR, Kanga Q, Rufa IK, Briggs HA, et al. Quantitative and stoichiometric analysis of the microRNA content of exosomes. PNAS 2014 Oct 14; 111(41): 14888–14893. pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1408301111
  24. Basu U, Meng F-L, Keim C, Grinstein V, Pefanis E, et al. The RNA Exosome Targets the AID Cytidine Deaminase to Both Strands of Transcribed Duplex DNA Substrates. Cell 2011; 144: 353–363, DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2011.01.001
  25. Pefanis E, Wang J, …, Rabadan R, Basu U. RNA Exosome-Regulated Long Non-Coding RNA Transcription Controls Super-Enhancer Activity. Cell 2015; 161: 774–789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.034
  26. Kilchert C,Wittmann S & Vasiljeva L. The regulation and functions of the nuclear RNA exosome complex. In RNA processing and modifications. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 17, 227–239 (2016) doi:10.1038/nrm.2015.15
  27. Guay C, Regazzi R. Exosomes as new players in metabolic organ cross-talk. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(Suppl. 1):137–146. DOI: 10.1111/dom.13027.
  28. Abramowicz A, Widlak P, Pietrowska M. Proteomic analysis of exosomal cargo: the challenge of high purity vesicle isolation. Molecular BioSystems MB-REV-02-2016-000082.R1
  29. Hopfner K-P, Hartung S. The RNA Exosomes. In Nucleic Acids and Molecular Biology. 2011. Ribonucleases pp 223-244. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21078-5_9/fulltext.html
  30. Fuessel S, Lohse-Fischer A, Vu Van D, Salomo K, Erdmann K, Wirth MP. (2017) Quantification of MicroRNAs in Urine-Derived Specimens. In Urothelial Carcinoma, Methods Mol Biol 1655:201-226.
  31. Street JM, Barran PE, Mackay CL, Weidt S, et al. Identification and proteomic profiling of exosomes in human cerebrospinal fluid. Journal of Translational Medicine 2012; 10:5. http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/10/1/5
  32. Pisitkun T, Shen R-F, and Knepper MA. Identification and proteomic profiling of exosomes in human urine. PNAS 2004, Sept 7; 101(36): 13368–13373. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0403453101
  33. Duijvesz D, Burnum-Johnson KE, Gritsenko MA, Hoogland AM, Vredenbregt-van den Berg MS, et al. Proteomic Profiling of Exosomes Leads to the Identification of Novel Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(12): e82589. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082589
  34. Welton JL, Khanna S, Giles PJ, Brennan P, et al. Proteomics Analysis of Bladder Cancer Exosomes. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 2010; 9:1324–1338. DOI 10.1074/mcp.M000063-MCP201
  35. Lee S, Suh G-Y, Ryter SW, and Choi AMK. Regulation and Function of the Nucleotide Binding Domain Leucine-Rich Repeat-Containing Receptor, PyrinDomain-Containing-3 Inflammasome in Lung Disease. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2016 Feb; 54(2):151–160. DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2015-0231TR.
  36. Zhang X, Yuan X, Shi H, Wu L, Qian H, Xu W. Exosomes in cancer: small particle, big player. J Hematol Oncol (2015)
  37. Zhao X, Wu Y, Duan J, Ma Y, Shen Z, et al. Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Exosome Protein Content Changes Induced by Hepatitis B Virus in Huh-7 Cells Using SILAC Labeling and LC–MS/MS. J. Proteome Res.; 2014, 13 (12):5391–5402. DOI: 10.1021/pr5008703
  38. Liang B, Peng P, et al. Characterization and proteomic analysis of ovarian cancer-derived exosomes. J Proteomics. 2013 Mar; 80:171-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2012.12.029
  39. Beckler MD, Higginbotham JN, Franklin JL,…, Li M, Liebler DC, Coffey RJ. Proteomic analysis of exosomes from mutant KRAS colon cancer cells identifies intercellular transfer of mutant KRAS. Mol. Cell Proteomics. 2013 Feb 12; (2). https://edrn.nci.nih.gov/publications/23161513-proteomic-analysis-of-exosomes
  40. Alvarez-Llamas G, Díaz J, Zubiri I. Proteome of Human Urinary Exosomes in Diabetic Nephropathy. In Biomarkers in Kidney Disease. Vinood B. Patel, Ed. Springer Science 2015; pp 1-21. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7743-9_22-1
  41. Simpson RJ, Jensen SS, Lim JW. Proteomic profiling of exosomes: current perspectives. Proteomics. 2008 Oct; 8(19):4083-99. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200800109.
  42. Scheya JKL, Luther M, Rose KL. Proteomics characterization of exosome cargo. Methods 2015 Oct; 87(1): 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.03.018
  43. Kim M-J, Yoon J-H & Ryu J-H. Mitophagy: a balance regulator of NLRP3 inflammasome Activation. BMB Rep. 2016; 49(10): 529-535. https://doi.org/10.5483/BMBRep.2016.49.10.115
  44. Eun-Kyeong Jo, Kim JK, Shin D-M and C Sasakawa. Molecular mechanisms regulating NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Cell Molec Immunol 2016; 13: 148–159. doi:10.1038/cmi.2015.95
  45. Leemans JC, Cassel SL, and Sutterwala FS. Sensing damage by the NLRP3 inflammasome. Immunol Rev. 2011 Sept; 243(1): 152–162. doi:10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01043.x.
  46. Hirota JA, Im H, Rahman MM, Rumzhum NN, Manetsch M, Pascoe CD, Bunge K, Alkhouri H, Oliver BG, Ammit AJ. The nucleotide-binding domain and leucine-rich repeat protein-3 inflammasome is not activated in airway smooth muscle upon toll-like receptor-2 ligation. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2013 Oct; 49(4):517-24. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2013-0047OC.
  47. Zhong Z, Sanchez-Lopez E, Karin M. Autophagy, NLRP3 inflammasome and auto-inflammatory immune diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016 Jul-Aug; 34(4 Suppl 98):12-6. Epub 2016 Jul 21.
  48. Hutton HL, Ooi JD, Holdsworth SR, Kitching AR. The NLRP3 inflammasome in kidney disease and autoimmunity. Nephrology (Carlton). 2016 Sep; 21(9):736-44. doi: 10.1111/nep.12785
  49. Xing Y, Cao R and Hu H-M. TLR and NLRP3 inflammasome-dependent innate immune responses to tumor-derived autophagosomes (DRibbles). Cell Death and Disease (2016) 7, e2322; doi:10.1038/cddis.2016.206
  50. Sahasrabudhe P, Rohrberg J, Biebl MM, Rutz DA, Buchner J. The Plasticity of the Hsp90 Co-chaperone System. Molecular Cell 2017 Sept; 67:947–961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.08.004

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »