Vacuolar SNARE Protein Transmembrane Domains Serve as Nonspecific Membrane Anchors with Unequal Roles in Lipid Mixing.

Membrane fusion is induced by SNARE complexes that are anchored in both fusion partners. SNAREs zipper up from the N to C terminus bringing the two membranes into close apposition. Their transmembrane domains (TMDs) might be mere anchoring devices, deforming bilayers by mechanical force. Structural studies suggested that TMDs might also perturb lipid structure by undergoing conformational transitions or by zipping up into the bilayer. Here, we tested this latter hypothesis, which predicts that the activity of SNAREs should depend on the primary sequence of their TMDs. We replaced the TMDs of all vacuolar SNAREs (Nyv1, Vam3, and Vti1) by a lipid anchor, by a TMD from a protein unrelated to the membrane fusion machinery, or by artificial leucine-valine sequences. Individual exchange of the native SNARE TMDs against an unrelated transmembrane anchor or an artificial leucine-valine sequence yielded normal fusion activities. Fusion activity was also preserved upon pairwise exchange of the TMDs against unrelated peptides, which eliminates the possibility for specific TMD-TMD interactions. Thus, a specific primary sequence or zippering beyond the SNARE domains is not a prerequisite for fusion. Lipid-anchored Vti1 was fully active, and lipid-anchored Nyv1 permitted the reaction to proceed up to hemifusion, and lipid-anchored Vam3 interfered already before hemifusion. The unequal contribution of proteinaceous TMDs on Vam3 and Nyv1 suggests that Q- and R-SNAREs might make different contributions to the hemifusion intermediate and the opening of the fusion pore. Furthermore, our data support the view that SNARE TMDs serve as nonspecific membrane anchors in vacuole fusion.

Optimising approaches to active immunotherapy of cancer

The design of therapeutic cancer vaccines is aimed at inducing high numbers and potent T cells that are able to target and eradicate malignant cells. This calls for close collaboration between cells of the innate immune system, in particular dendritic cells (DCs), and cells of the adaptive immune system, notably CD4+ helper T cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells. Therapeutic vaccines are aided by adjuvants, which can be, for example, Toll¬like Receptor agonists or agents promoting the cytosolic delivery of antigens, among others. Vaccination with long synthetic peptides (LSPs) is a promising strategy, as the requirement for their intracellular processing will mainly target LSPs to professional antigen presenting cells (APCs), hence avoiding the immune tolerance elicited by the presentation of antigens by non-professional APCs. The unique property of antigen cross-processing and cross-presentation activity by DCs plays an important role in eliciting antitumour immunity given that antigens from engulfed dead tumour cells require this distinct biological process to be processed and presented to CD8+T cells in the context of MHC class I molecules. DCs expressing the XCR1 chemokine receptor are characterised by their superior capability of antigen cross- presentation and priming of highly cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses. Recently, XCR1 was found to be also expressed in tissue-residents DCs in humans, with a simitar transcriptional profile to that of cross- presenting murine DCs. This shed light into the value of harnessing this subtype of XCR1+ cross-presenting DCs for therapeutic vaccination of cancer. In this study, we explored ways of adjuvanting and optimising LSP therapeutic vaccinations by the use, in Part I, of the XCLl chemokine that selectively binds to the XCR1 receptor, as a mean to target antigen to the cross-presenting XCR1+ DCs; and in Part II, by the inclusion of Q.S21 in the LSP vaccine formulation, a saponin with adjuvant activity, as well as the ability to promote cytosolic delivery of LSP antigens due to its intrinsic cell membrane insertion activity. In Part I, we designed and produced XCLl-(OVA LSP)-Fc fusion proteins, and showed that their binding to XCR1+ DCs mediate their chemoattraction. In addition, therapeutic vaccinations adjuvanted with XCLl-(OVA LSP)-Fc fusion proteins significantly enhanced the OVA-specific CD8+ T cell response, and led to complete tumour regression in the EL4-OVA model, and significant control of tumour growth in the B16.0VA tumour model. With the aim to optimise the co-delivery of LSP antigen and XCLl to skin-draining lymph nodes we also tested immunisations using nanoparticle (NP)-conjugated OVA LSP in the presence or absence of XCLl chemokine. The NP-mediated delivery of LSP potentiated the CTL response seen in the blood of vaccinated mice, and NP-OVA LSP vaccine in the presence of XCLl led to higher blood frequencies of OVA-specific memory-precursor effector cells. Nevertheless, in these settings, the addition XCLl to NP-OVA LSP vaccine formulation did not increase its antitumour therapeutic effect. In the Part II, we assessed in HLA-A2/DR1 mice the immunogenicity of the Melan-AA27L LSP or the Melan-A26. 35 AA27l short synthetic peptide (SSP) used in conjunction with the saponin adjuvant QS21, aiming to identify a potent adjuvant formulation that elicits a quantitatively and qualitatively strong immune response to tumour antigens. We showed a high CTL immune response elicited by the use of Melan-A LSP or SSP with QS21, which both exerted similar killing capacity upon in vivo transfer of target cells expressing the Melan-A peptide in the context of HLA-A2 molecules. However, the response generated by the LSP immunisation comprised higher percentages of CD8+T cells of the central memory phenotype (CD44hl CD62L+ and CCR7+ CD62L+) than those of SSP immunisation, and most importantly, the strong LSP+QS21 response was strictly CD4+T cell-dependent, as shown upon CD4 T cell depletion. Altogether, these results suggest that both XCLl and QS21 may enhance the ability of LSP to prime CD8 specific T cell responses, and promote a long-term memory response. Therefore, these observations may have important implications for the design of protein or LSP-based cancer vaccines for specific immunotherapy of cancer -- Les vacans thérapeutiques contre le cancer visent à induire une forte et durable réponse immunitaire contre des cellules cancéreuses résiduelles. Cette réponse requiert la collaboration entre le système immunitaire inné, en particulier les cellules dendrites (DCs), et le système immunitaire adaptatif, en l'occurrence les lymphocytes TCD4 hdper et CD8 cytotoxiques. La mise au point d'adjuvants et de molécules mimant un agent pathogène tels les ligands TLRs ou d'autres agents facilitant l'internalisation d'antigènes, est essentielle pour casser la tolérance du système immunitaire contre les cellules cancéreuses afin de générer une réponse effectrice et mémoire contre la tumeur. L'utilisation de longs peptides synthétiques (LSPs) est une approche prometteuse du fait que leur présentation en tant qu'antigénes requiert leur internalisation et leur transformation par les cellules dendrites (DCs, qui sont les mieux à même d'éviter la tolérance immunitaire. Récemment une sous-population de DCs exprimant le récepteur XCR1 a été décrite comme ayant une capacité supérieure dans la cross-présentation d'antigènes, d'où un intérêt à développer des vaccins ciblant les DCs exprimant le XCR1. Durant ma thèse de doctorat, j'ai exploré différentes approches pour optimiser les vaccins avec LSPs. La première partie visait à cibler les XCR1-DCs à l'aide de la chemokine XCL1 spécifique du récepteur XCR1, soit sou s la forme de protéine de fusion XCL1-OVA LSP-Fc, soit associée à des nanoparticules. La deuxième partie a consisté à tester l'association des LSPs avec I adjuvant QS21 dérivant d'une saponine dans le but d'optimiser l'internalisation cytosolique des longs peptides. Les protéines de fusion XCLl-OVA-Fc développées dans la première partie de mon travail, ont démontré leur capacité de liaison spécifique sur les XCRl-DCs associée à leur capacité de chemo-attractio. Lorsque inclues dans une mmunisation de souris porteuse de tumeurs établies, ces protéines de fusion XCL1-0VA LSP-Fc et XCLl-Fc plus OVA LSP ont induites une forte réponse CDS OVA spécifique permettant la complète régression des tumeurs de modèle EL4- 0VA et un retard de croissance significatif de tumeurs de type B16-0VA. Dans le but d'optimiser le drainage des LSPs vers es noyaux lymphatiques, nous avons également testé les LSPs fixés de manière covalente à des nanoparticules co- injectees ou non avec la chemokine XCL1. Cette formulation a également permis une forte réponse CD8 accompagnée d'un effet thérapeutique significatif, mais l'addition de la chemokine XCL1 n'a pas ajouté d'effet anti-tumeur supplémentaire. Dans la deuxième partie de ma thèse, j'ai comparé l'immunogénicité de l'antigène humain Melan A soit sous la forme d un LSP incluant un épitope CD4 et CD8 ou sous la forme d'un peptide ne contenant que l'épitope CD8 (SSP) Les peptides ont été formulés avec l'adjuvant QS21 et testés dans un modèle de souris transgéniques pour les MHC let II humains, respectivement le HLA-A2 et DR1. Les deux peptides LSP et SSP ont généré une forte réponse CD8 similaire assoc.ee a une capacité cytotoxique équivalente lors du transfert in vivo de cellules cibles présentant le peptide SSP' Cependant les souris immunisées avec le Melan A LSP présentaient un pourcentage plus élevé de CD8 ayant un Phénotype «centra, memory» (CD44h' CD62L+ and CCR7+ CD62L+) que les souris immunisées avec le SSP, même dix mois après I'immunisation. Par ailleurs, la réponse CD8 au Melan A LSP était strictement dépendante des lymphocytes CD4, contrairement à l'immunisation par le Melan A SSP qui n'était pas affectée. Dans l'ensemble ces résultats suggèrent que la chemokine XCL1 et l'adjuvant QS21 améliorent la réponse CD8 à un long peptide synthétique, favorisant ainsi le développement d'une réponse anti-tumeur mémoire durable. Ces observations pourraient être utiles au développement de nouveau vaccins thérapeutiques contre les tumeurs.

Genetics-Based Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Risperidone in a Psychiatric Cohort.

BACKGROUND: High interindividual variability in plasma concentrations of risperidone and its active metabolite, 9-hydroxyrisperidone, may lead to suboptimal drug concentration. OBJECTIVE: Using a population pharmacokinetic approach, we aimed to characterize the genetic and non-genetic sources of variability affecting risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone pharmacokinetics, and relate them to common side effects. METHODS: Overall, 150 psychiatric patients (178 observations) treated with risperidone were genotyped for common polymorphisms in NR1/2, POR, PPARα, ABCB1, CYP2D6 and CYP3A genes. Plasma risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were measured, and clinical data and common clinical chemistry parameters were collected. Drug and metabolite concentrations were analyzed using non-linear mixed effect modeling (NONMEM(®)). Correlations between trough concentrations of the active moiety (risperidone plus 9-hydroxyrisperidone) and common side effects were assessed using logistic regression and linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: The cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 phenotype explained 52 % of interindividual variability in risperidone pharmacokinetics. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of the active moiety was found to be 28 % higher in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers compared with intermediate, extensive and ultrarapid metabolizers. No other genetic markers were found to significantly affect risperidone concentrations. 9-hydroxyrisperidone elimination was decreased by 26 % with doubling of age. A correlation between trough predicted concentration of the active moiety and neurologic symptoms was found (p = 0.03), suggesting that a concentration >40 ng/mL should be targeted only in cases of insufficient, or absence of, response. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6 play an important role in risperidone, 9-hydroxyrisperidone and active moiety plasma concentration variability, which were associated with common side effects. These results highlight the importance of a personalized dosage adjustment during risperidone treatment.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Aerosol therapy in intensive and intermediate care units: prospective observation of 2808 critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: Unlike in the outpatient setting, delivery of aerosols to critically ill patients may be considered complex, particularly in ventilated patients, and benefits remain to be proven. Many factors influence aerosol delivery and recommendations exist, but little is known about knowledge translation into clinical practice. METHODS: Two-week cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of aerosol therapy in 81 intensive and intermediate care units in 22 countries. All aerosols delivered to patients breathing spontaneously, ventilated invasively or noninvasively (NIV) were recorded, and drugs, devices, ventilator settings, circuit set-up, humidification and side effects were noted. RESULTS: A total of 9714 aerosols were administered to 678 of the 2808 admitted patients (24 %, CI95 22-26 %), whereas only 271 patients (10 %) were taking inhaled medication before admission. There were large variations among centers, from 0 to 57 %. Among intubated patients 22 % (n = 262) received aerosols, and 50 % (n = 149) of patients undergoing NIV, predominantly (75 %) inbetween NIV sessions. Bronchodilators (n = 7960) and corticosteroids (n = 1233) were the most frequently delivered drugs (88 % overall), predominantly but not exclusively (49 %) administered to patients with chronic airway disease. An anti-infectious drug was aerosolized 509 times (5 % of all aerosols) for nosocomial infections. Jet-nebulizers were the most frequently used device (56 %), followed by metered dose inhalers (23 %). Only 106 (<1 %) mild side effects were observed, despite frequent suboptimal set-ups such as an external gas supply of jet nebulizers for intubated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Aerosol therapy concerns every fourth critically ill patient and one-fifth of ventilated patients.