Ins-4 and daf-28 function redundantly to regulate C. elegans L1 arrest

© 2014 The Authors.Caenorhabditis elegans larvae reversibly arrest development in the first larval stage in response to starvation (L1 arrest or L1 diapause). Insulin-like signaling is a critical regulator of L1 arrest. However, the C. elegans genome encodes 40 insulin-like peptides, and it is unknown which peptides participate in nutritional control of L1 development. Work in other contexts has revealed that insulin-like genes can promote development ("agonists") or developmental arrest ("antagonists"), suggesting that such agonists promote L1 development in response to feeding. We measured mRNA expression dynamics with high temporal resolution for all 40 insulin-like genes during entry into and recovery from L1 arrest. Nutrient availability influences expression of the majority of insulin-like genes, with variable dynamics suggesting complex regulation. We identified thirteen candidate agonists and eight candidate antagonists based on expression in response to nutrient availability. We selected ten candidate agonists (. daf-28, ins-3, ins-4, ins-5, ins-6, ins-7, ins-9, ins-26, ins-33 and ins-35) for further characterization in L1 stage larvae. We used destabilized reporter genes to determine spatial expression patterns. Expression of candidate agonists is largely overlapping in L1 stage larvae, suggesting a role of the intestine, chemosensory neurons ASI and ASJ, and the interneuron PVT in control of L1 development. Transcriptional regulation of candidate agonists is most significant in the intestine, as if internal nutrient status is a more important influence on transcription than sensory perception. Phenotypic analysis of single and compound deletion mutants did not reveal effects on L1 developmental dynamics, though simultaneous disruption of ins-4 and daf-28 increases survival of L1 arrest. Furthermore, overexpression of ins-4, ins-6 or daf-28 alone decreases survival and promotes cell division during starvation. These results suggest extensive functional overlap among insulin-like genes in nutritional control of L1 development while highlighting the role of ins-4, daf-28 and to a lesser extent ins-6.

Veterans health administration hepatitis B testing and treatment with anti-CD20 antibody administration.

AIM: To evaluate pretreatment hepatitis B virus (HBV) testing, vaccination, and antiviral treatment rates in Veterans Affairs patients receiving anti-CD20 Ab for quality improvement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national repository of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic health record data. We identified all patients receiving anti-CD20 Ab treatment (2002-2014). We ascertained patient demographics, laboratory results, HBV vaccination status (from vaccination records), pharmacy data, and vital status. The high risk period for HBV reactivation is during anti-CD20 Ab treatment and 12 mo follow up. Therefore, we analyzed those who were followed to death or for at least 12 mo after completing anti-CD20 Ab. Pretreatment serologic tests were used to categorize chronic HBV (hepatitis B surface antigen positive or HBsAg+), past HBV (HBsAg-, hepatitis B core antibody positive or HBcAb+), resolved HBV (HBsAg-, HBcAb+, hepatitis B surface antibody positive or HBsAb+), likely prior vaccination (isolated HBsAb+), HBV negative (HBsAg-, HBcAb-), or unknown. Acute hepatitis B was defined by the appearance of HBsAg+ in the high risk period in patients who were pretreatment HBV negative. We assessed HBV antiviral treatment and the incidence of hepatitis, liver failure, and death during the high risk period. Cumulative hepatitis, liver failure, and death after anti-CD20 Ab initiation were compared by HBV disease categories and differences compared using the χ(2) test. Mean time to hepatitis peak alanine aminotransferase, liver failure, and death relative to anti-CD20 Ab administration and follow-up were also compared by HBV disease group. RESULTS: Among 19304 VHA patients who received anti-CD20 Ab, 10224 (53%) had pretreatment HBsAg testing during the study period, with 49% and 43% tested for HBsAg and HBcAb, respectively within 6 mo pretreatment in 2014. Of those tested, 2% (167/10224) had chronic HBV, 4% (326/7903) past HBV, 5% (427/8110) resolved HBV, 8% (628/8110) likely prior HBV vaccination, and 76% (6022/7903) were HBV negative. In those with chronic HBV infection, ≤ 37% received HBV antiviral treatment during the high risk period while 21% to 23% of those with past or resolved HBV, respectively, received HBV antiviral treatment. During and 12 mo after anti-CD20 Ab, the rate of hepatitis was significantly greater in those HBV positive vs negative (P = 0.001). The mortality rate was 35%-40% in chronic or past hepatitis B and 26%-31% in hepatitis B negative. In those pretreatment HBV negative, 16 (0.3%) developed acute hepatitis B of 4947 tested during anti-CD20Ab treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSION: While HBV testing of Veterans has increased prior to anti-CD20 Ab, few HBV+ patients received HBV antivirals, suggesting electronic health record algorithms may enhance health outcomes.