Citations

Activation of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptors in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) resets the circadian clock during the day and inhibits the ability of light to reset the clock at night. Light in turn acts during the day to inhibit the phase-resetting effects of GABA. Some evidence suggests that Period mRNA changes in the SCN are responsible for these interactions between light and GABA. Here, the hypothesis that light and the GABA A receptor interact by altering the expression of Period 1 and/or Period 2 mRNA in the SCN is tested. The GABA A agonist muscimol was injected near the SCN just prior to a light pulse, during the mid-subjective day and the early and late subjective night. Changes in Period 1 and Period 2 mRNA were measured in the SCN by in situ hybridization. Light-induced Period 1 mRNA was inhibited by GABA A receptor activation in the early and late subjective night, while Period 2 mRNA was only inhibited during the late night. During the subjective day, light had no effect on the ability of muscimol to suppress Period 1 mRNA hybridization signal. Thus, light and GABA A receptor activation inhibit each other's ability to induce behavioral phase shifts throughout the subjective day and night. However, only in the late night are these behavioral effects correlated with changes in Period gene expression. Together, our data support the hypothesis that the interacting effects of light and GABA are the result of the opposing actions of these stimuli on Period mRNA, but only during the subjective night.

Abstract Studies have shown that the immune system can recognize self-antigens under conditions (eg, cell injury) in which the self-tissue might elaborate immune-activating endogenous danger signals. Uric acid (UA) is an endogenous danger signal recently identified to be released from dying cells. Prior work has shown that UA activates immune effectors of both the innate and adaptive immune system, including neutrophils and cytotoxic T-cell immunity. However, it was unclear whether UA could enhance antibody immunity, which was examined in this study. When added to dying tumor cells or with whole protein antigen, UA increased IgG1-based humoral immunity. Further, UA blocked growth of tumor in subsequent tumor challenge experiments, which depended on CD4, but not CD8, T cells. Sera derived from UA-treated animals enhanced tumor growth, suggesting it had little role in the antitumor response. UA did not signal for T-cell expansion or altered tumor-infiltrating leukocyte populations. Consistent with the lack of T-cell expansion, when applied to dendritic cells, UA suppressed T-cell growth factors but up-regulated B cell–activating cytokines. Understanding the nature of endogenous danger signals released from dying cells may aid in a better understanding of mechanisms of immune recognition of self.

Thirty to forty percent of migraineurs do not respond to any given triptan treatment. We identified clinical variables that significantly predict therapeutic non-response and evaluated the efficacy of eletriptan (20, 40 and 80 mg) and sumatriptan (100 mg) vs. placebo in a subgroup of patients with all predictor variables. First-attack data were pooled from 10 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled migraine trials ( n = 8473). Multivariate regression analyses identified three significant baseline predictors of failure to achieve 2-h pain-free response: severe headache pain, presence of photophobia/phonophobia and presence of nausea. Time of dosing following headache onset did not influence 2-h pain-free response. Among patients with all three risk factors ( n = 2010; 24± of total sample), 2-h pain-free response was significantly higher in patients receiving all three doses of eletriptan or sumatriptan vs. placebo (all P< 0.01). Thus, eletriptan and sumatriptan are efficacious in difficult-to-treat patients at high risk for non-response to triptans.

Abstract Vertebral fractures are more strongly associated with specific bone density, structure, and strength parameters than with areal BMD, but all of these variables are correlated. Introduction: It is unclear whether the association of areal BMD (aBMD) with vertebral fracture risk depends on bone density per se, bone macro- or microstructure, overall bone strength, or spine load/bone strength ratios. Materials and Methods: From an age-stratified sample of Rochester, MN, women, we identified 40 with a clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture (confirmed semiquantitatively) caused by moderate trauma (cases; mean age, 78.6 ± 9.0 yr) and compared them with 40 controls with no osteoporotic fracture (mean age, 70.9 ± 6.8 yr). Lumbar spine volumetric BMD (vBMD) and geometry were assessed by central QCT, whereas microstructure was evaluated by high-resolution pQCT at the ultradistal radius. Vertebral failure load (∼strength) was estimated from voxel-based finite element models, and the factor-of-risk (ϕ) was determined as the ratio of applied spine loads to failure load. Results: Spine loading (axial compressive force on L3) was similar in vertebral fracture cases and controls (e.g., for 90° forward flexion, 2639 versus 2706 N; age-adjusted p = 0.173). However, fracture cases had inferior values for most bone density and structure variables. Bone strength measures were also reduced, and the factor-of-risk was 35–37% greater (worse) among women with a vertebral fracture. By age-adjusted logistic regression, relative risks for the strongest fracture predictor in each of the five main variable categories were bone density (total lumbar spine vBMD: OR per SD change, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1–4.3), bone geometry (vertebral apparent cortical thickness: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1–4.1), bone microstructure (none significant); bone strength (“cortical” [outer 2 mm] compressive strength: OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3–4.8), and factor-of-risk (ϕ for 90° forward flexion/overall vertebral compressive strength: OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.4–7.5). These variables were correlated with spine aBMD (partial r, −0.32 to 0.75), but each was a stronger predictor of fracture in the logistic regression analyses. Conclusions: The association of aBMD with vertebral fracture risk is explained by its correlation with more specific bone density, structure, and strength parameters. These may allow deeper insights into fracture pathogenesis.