R5 clade C SHIV strains with tier 1 or 2 neutralization sensitivity: tools to dissect env evolution and to develop AIDS vaccines in primate models.

BACKGROUND: HIV-1 clade C (HIV-C) predominates worldwide, and anti-HIV-C vaccines are urgently needed. Neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses are considered important but have proved difficult to elicit. Although some current immunogens elicit antibodies that neutralize highly neutralization-sensitive (tier 1) HIV strains, most circulating HIVs exhibiting a less sensitive (tier 2) phenotype are not neutralized. Thus, both tier 1 and 2 viruses are needed for vaccine discovery in nonhuman primate models. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We constructed a tier 1 simian-human immunodeficiency virus, SHIV-1157ipEL, by inserting an "early," recently transmitted HIV-C env into the SHIV-1157ipd3N4 backbone [1] encoding a "late" form of the same env, which had evolved in a SHIV-infected rhesus monkey (RM) with AIDS. SHIV-1157ipEL was rapidly passaged to yield SHIV-1157ipEL-p, which remained exclusively R5-tropic and had a tier 1 phenotype, in contrast to "late" SHIV-1157ipd3N4 (tier 2). After 5 weekly low-dose intrarectal exposures, SHIV-1157ipEL-p systemically infected 16 out of 17 RM with high peak viral RNA loads and depleted gut CD4+ T cells. SHIV-1157ipEL-p and SHIV-1157ipd3N4 env genes diverge mostly in V1/V2. Molecular modeling revealed a possible mechanism for the increased neutralization resistance of SHIV-1157ipd3N4 Env: V2 loops hindering access to the CD4 binding site, shown experimentally with nAb b12. Similar mutations have been linked to decreased neutralization sensitivity in HIV-C strains isolated from humans over time, indicating parallel HIV-C Env evolution in humans and RM. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: SHIV-1157ipEL-p, the first tier 1 R5 clade C SHIV, and SHIV-1157ipd3N4, its tier 2 counterpart, represent biologically relevant tools for anti-HIV-C vaccine development in primates.

Integrated analysis of CANVAS 1 and 2: phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ceftaroline versus vancomycin plus aztreonam in complicated skin and skin-structure infection.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common cause of complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI). Increasing antimicrobial resistance in cSSSI has led to a need for new safe and effective therapies. Ceftaroline was evaluated as treatment for cSSSI in 2 identical phase 3 clinical trials, the pooled analysis of which is presented here. The primary objective of each trial was to determine the noninferiority of the clinical cure rate achieved with ceftaroline monotherapy, compared with that achieved with vancomycin plus aztreonam combination therapy, in the clinically evaluable (CE) and modified intent-to-treat (MITT) patient populations. METHODS: Adult patients with cSSSI requiring intravenous therapy received ceftaroline (600 mg every 12 h) or vancomycin plus aztreonam (1 g each every 12 h) for 5-14 days. RESULTS: Of 1378 patients enrolled in both trials, 693 received ceftaroline and 685 received vancomycin plus aztreonam. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were comparable. Clinical cure rates were similar for ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam in the CE (91.6% vs 92.7%) and MITT (85.9% vs 85.5%) populations, respectively, as well as in patients infected with MRSA (93.4% vs 94.3%). The rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of an adverse event, serious adverse events, and death also were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftaroline achieved high clinical cure rates, was efficacious against cSSSI caused by MRSA and other common cSSSI pathogens, and was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the cephalosporin class. Ceftaroline has the potential to provide a monotherapy alternative for the treatment of cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00424190 for CANVAS 1 and NCT00423657 for CANVAS 2.

Independent beta-arrestin 2 and G protein-mediated pathways for angiotensin II activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2.

Stimulation of a mutant angiotensin type 1A receptor (DRY/AAY) with angiotensin II (Ang II) or of a wild-type receptor with an Ang II analog ([sarcosine1,Ile4,Ile8]Ang II) fails to activate classical heterotrimeric G protein signaling but does lead to recruitment of beta-arrestin 2-GFP and activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) (maximum stimulation approximately 50% of wild type). This G protein-independent activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase is abolished by depletion of cellular beta-arrestin 2 but is unaffected by the PKC inhibitor Ro-31-8425. In parallel, stimulation of the wild-type angiotensin type 1A receptor with Ang II robustly stimulates ERK1/2 activation with approximately 60% of the response blocked by the PKC inhibitor (G protein dependent) and the rest of the response blocked by depletion of cellular beta-arrestin 2 by small interfering RNA (beta-arrestin dependent). These findings imply the existence of independent G protein- and beta-arrestin 2-mediated pathways leading to ERK1/2 activation and the existence of distinct "active" conformations of a seven-membrane-spanning receptor coupled to each.

beta-Arrestin 1 and 2 differentially regulate heptahelical receptor signaling and trafficking.

The two widely coexpressed isoforms of beta-arrestin (termed beta arrestin 1 and 2) are highly similar in amino acid sequence. The beta-arrestins bind phosphorylated heptahelical receptors to desensitize and target them to clathrin-coated pits for endocytosis. To better define differences in the roles of beta-arrestin 1 and 2, we prepared mouse embryonic fibroblasts from knockout mice that lack one of the beta-arrestins (beta arr1-KO and beta arr2-KO) or both (beta arr1/2-KO), as well as their wild-type (WT) littermate controls. These cells were analyzed for their ability to support desensitization and sequestration of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor (beta(2)-AR) and the angiotensin II type 1A receptor (AT(1A)-R). Both beta arr1-KO and beta arr2-KO cells showed similar impairment in agonist-stimulated beta(2)-AR and AT(1A)-R desensitization, when compared with their WT control cells, and the beta arr1/2-KO cells were even further impaired. Sequestration of the beta(2)-AR in the beta arr2-KO cells was compromised significantly (87% reduction), whereas in the beta arr1-KO cells it was not. Agonist-stimulated internalization of the AT(1A)-R was only slightly reduced in the beta arr1-KO but was unaffected in the beta arr2-KO cells. In the beta arr1/2-KO cells, the sequestration of both receptors was dramatically reduced. Comparison of the ability of the two beta-arrestins to sequester the beta(2)-AR revealed beta-arrestin 2 to be 100-fold more potent than beta-arrestin 1. Down-regulation of the beta(2)-AR was also prevented in the beta arr1/2-KO cells, whereas no change was observed in the single knockout cells. These findings suggest that sequestration of various heptahelical receptors is regulated differently by the two beta-arrestins, whereas both isoforms are capable of supporting receptor desensitization and down-regulation.

Structural basis of beta-adrenergic receptor subtype specificity studied with chimeric beta 1/beta 2-adrenergic receptors.

The beta 1- and beta 2-adrenergic receptors are two structurally related, but pharmacologically distinguishable, receptor subtypes, both of which activate adenylyl cyclase in a catecholamine-dependent manner through the guanine nucleotide-binding regulatory protein Gs. The receptors are approximately 50% identical in amino acid sequence and each is characterized by the presence of seven putative transmembrane domains. To elucidate the structural basis for the pharmacological distinctions between these two receptor subtypes, we constructed a series of chimeric beta 1/beta 2-adrenergic receptor genes and expressed them by injection of RNA into Xenopus laevis oocytes. The pharmacological properties of the expressed chimeric receptor proteins were assessed by radioligand binding and adenylyl cyclase assays utilizing subtype-selective agonists and antagonists. Our data indicate that transmembrane region IV is largely responsible for determining beta 1 vs. beta 2 properties with respect to agonist binding (relative affinities for epinephrine and norepinephrine). Transmembrane regions VI and VII play an important role in determining binding of beta 1 vs. beta 2 selective antagonists. However, a number of the other transmembrane regions also contribute, to a lesser extent, to the determination of beta-adrenergic receptor subtype specificity for agonists and antagonists. Thus, several of the membrane-spanning regions appear to be involved in the determination of receptor subtype specificity, presumably by formation of a ligand-binding pocket, with determinants for agonist and antagonist binding being distinguishable.