Probiotics modify tight junction proteins in an animal model of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Objectives We have investigated the effects of a multi–species probiotic preparation containing a combination of probiotic bacterial genera that included Bifidobacteria, Lactobacilli and a Streptococcus in a mouse model of high fat diet/obesity induced liver steatosis. Methods Three groups of C57B1/6J mice were fed either a standard chow or a high fat diet for 20 weeks, while a third group was fed a high fat diet for 10 weeks and then concomitantly administered probiotics for a further 10 weeks. Serum, liver and large bowel samples were collected for analysis. Results The expression of the tight junction proteins ZO-1 and ZO-2 was reduced (p < 0.05) in high fat diet fed mice compared to chow fed mice. Probiotic supplementation helped to maintain tight ZO-1 and ZO-2 expression compared with the high fat diet group (p < 0.05), but did not restore ZO-1 or ZO-2 expression compared with chow fed mice. Mice fed a high fat diet ± probiotics had significant steatosis development compared to chow fed mice (p < 0.05); steatosis was less severe in the probiotics group compared to the high fat diet group. Hepatic triglycerides concentration was higher in mice fed a high fat diet ± probiotics compared to the chow group (p < 0.05), and was lower in the probiotics group compared to the high fat diet group (p < 0.05). Compared to chow fed mice, serum glucose and cholesterol concentrations, and the activity of alanine transaminase were higher (p < 0.05), whereas serum triglyceride concentration was lower (p < 0.05) in mice fed a high fat diet ± probiotics. Conclusions Supplementation with a multi-species probiotic formulation helped to maintain tight junction proteins ZO-1 and ZO-2, and reduced hepatic triglyceride concentrations compared with a HFD alone.

Three-dimensional organization of fenestrae labyrinths in liver sinusoidal endothelial cells

- Background/Aims Liver sinusoidal endothelial cell (LSEC) fenestrae are membrane-bound pores that are grouped in sieve plates and act as a bidirectional guardian in regulating transendothelial liver transport. The high permeability of the endothelial lining is explained by the presence of fenestrae and by various membrane-bound transport vesicles. The question as to whether fenestrae relate to other transport compartments remains unclear and has been debated since their discovery almost 40 years ago. - Methods In this study, novel insights concerning the three-dimensional (3D) organization of the fenestrated cytoplasm were built on transmission electron tomographical observations on isolated and cultured whole-mount LSECs. Classical transmission electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy imaging was performed to accumulate cross-correlative structural evidence. - Results and Conclusions The data presented here indicate that different arrangements of fenestrae have to be considered: i.e. open fenestrae that lack any structural obstruction mainly located in the thin peripheral cytoplasm and complexes of multifolded fenestrae organized as labyrinth-like structures that are found in the proximity of the perinuclear area. Fenestrae in labyrinths constitute about one-third of the total LSEC porosity. The 3D reconstructions also revealed that coated pits and small membrane-bound vesicles are exclusively interspersed in the non-fenestrated cytoplasmic arms.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.