The effect of a selective CXCR2 antagonist (AZD5069) on human blood neutrophil count and innate immune functions.

Abstract AIMS: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether selective antagonism of the cysteine-X-cysteine chemokine receptor-2 (CXCR2) receptor has any adverse effects on the key innate effector functions of human neutrophils for defence against microbial pathogens. METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover study, 30 healthy volunteers were randomized to treatment with the CXCR2 antagonist AZD5069 (100 mg) or placebo, twice daily orally for 6 days. The peripheral blood neutrophil count was assessed at baseline, daily during treatment and in response to exercise challenge and subcutaneous injection of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Neutrophil function was evaluated by phagocytosis of Escherichia coli and by the oxidative burst response to E. coli. RESULTS: AZD5069 treatment reversibly reduced circulating neutrophil count from baseline by a mean [standard deviation (SD)] of -1.67 (0.67) ×10(9) l(-1) vs. 0.19 (0.78) ×10(9) l(-1) for placebo on day 2, returning to baseline by day 7 after the last dose. Despite low counts on day 4, a 10-min exercise challenge increased absolute blood neutrophil count, but the effect with AZD5069 was smaller and not sustained, compared with placebo treatment. Subcutaneous G-CSF on day 5 caused a substantial increase in blood neutrophil count in both placebo- and AZD5069-treated subjects. Superoxide anion production in E. coli-stimulated neutrophils and phagocytosis of E. coli were unaffected by AZD5069 (P = 0.375, P = 0.721, respectively vs. baseline, Day 4). AZD5069 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: CXCR2 antagonism did not appear adversely to affect the mobilization of neutrophils from bone marrow into the peripheral circulation, phagocytosis or the oxidative burst response to bacterial pathogens. This supports the potential of CXCR2 antagonists as a treatment option for diseases in which neutrophils play a pathological role.

What is universal and what differs in language development?

Goldin-Meadow (2015) presents an exceptional synthesis of work from studies of children acquiring language under variable circumstances of input or processing abilities. Deaf children who acquire homesign without any well- formed model from which to learn language represent a powerful example. Goldin-Meadow argues that the resilient properties of language that nevertheless emerge include simple syntactic structures, hierarchical organisa- tion, markers modulating the meaning of sentences, and social-communicative functions. Among the fragile or input-dependent properties are the orders that the language follows, the parts into which words are decomposed, and the features that distinguish nominals from predicates. Separation of these two types of properties poses questions concerning the innate constraints on language acquisition (perhaps these equate to the resilient properties) and con‐ cerning the specificity of processes to language (e.g., whether properties such as hierarchical organisation are specific to language or originate in the structure of thought). The study of the resilient properties of human language in the face of adversity and the relation of these properties to the information that is encoded in the human genome represent a research strategy that draws inferences about species universals (properties that all humans share) from data about individual differences (IDs; factors that make humans different from one another). In the following, we suggest three reasons to be cautious about this approach.