Monoclonal antibodies to murine lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein (LBP) protect mice from lethal endotoxemia by blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the presentation of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14.

Cellular responses to LPS, the major lipid component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, are enhanced markedly by the LPS-binding protein (LBP), a plasma protein that transfers LPS to the cell surface CD14 present on cells of the myeloid lineage. LBP has been shown previously to potentiate the host response to LPS. However, experiments performed in mice with a disruption of the LBP gene have yielded discordant results. Whereas one study showed that LBP knockout mice were resistant to endotoxemia, another study did not confirm an important role for LBP in the response of mice challenged in vivo with low doses of LPS. Consequently, we generated rat mAbs to murine LBP to investigate further the contribution of LBP in experimental endotoxemia. Three classes of mAbs were obtained. Class 1 mAbs blocked the binding of LPS to LBP; class 2 mAbs blocked the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14; class 3 mAbs bound LBP but did not suppress LBP activity. In vivo, class 1 and class 2 mAbs suppressed LPS-induced TNF production and protected mice from lethal endotoxemia. These results show that the neutralization of LBP accomplished by blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14 protects the host from LPS-induced toxicity, confirming that LBP is a critical component of innate immunity.

PFO closure vs. medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess whether patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is superior to medical therapy in preventing recurrence of cryptogenic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized trials which compared PFO closure with medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke/TIA using the items: "stroke or cerebrovascular accident or TIA" and "patent foramen ovale or paradoxical embolism" and "trial or study". RESULTS: Among 650 potentially eligible articles, 3 were included including 2303 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between PFO-closure and medical therapy in ischemic stroke recurrence (1.91% vs. 2.94% respectively, OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.37-1.10), TIA (2.08% vs. 2.42% respectively, OR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.50-1.51) and death (0.60% vs. 0.86% respectively, OR: 0.71, 95%CI: 0.28-1.82). In subgroup analysis, there was significant reduction of ischemic strokes in the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder arm vs. medical therapy (1.4% vs. 3.04% respectively, OR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.21-0.98, relative-risk-reduction: 53.2%, absolute-risk-reduction: 1.6%, number-needed-to-treat: 61.8) but not in the STARFlex device (2.7% vs. 2.8% with medical therapy, OR: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.45-2.11). Compared to medical therapy, the number of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) was similar in the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder arm (0.72% vs. 1.28% respectively, OR: 1.81, 95%CI: 0.60-5.42) but higher in the STARFlex device (0.64% vs. 5.14% respectively, OR: 8.30, 95%CI: 2.47-27.84). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis does not support PFO closure for secondary prevention with unselected devices in cryptogenic stroke/TIA. In subgroup analysis, selected closure devices may be superior to medical therapy without increasing the risk of new-onset AF, however. This observation should be confirmed in further trials using inclusion criteria for patients with high likelihood of PFO-related stroke recurrence.

Plasmacytoid dendritic cells: one-trick ponies or workhorses of the immune system?

Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) were first described as interferon-producing cells and, for many years, their overlapping characteristics with both lymphocytes and classical dendritic cells (cDCs) created confusion over their exact ontogeny. In this Viewpoint article, Nature Reviews Immunology asks five leaders in the field to discuss their thoughts on the development and functions of pDCs--do these cells serve mainly as a major source of type I interferons or do they also make other important contributions to immune responses?

Priming psychic and conjuring abilities of a magic demonstration influences event interpretation and random number generation biases

Magical ideation and belief in the paranormal is considered to represent a trait-like character; people either believe in it or not. Yet, anecdotes indicate that exposure to an anomalous event can turn skeptics into believers. This transformation is likely to be accompanied by altered cognitive functioning such as impaired judgments of event likelihood. Here, we investigated whether the exposure to an anomalous event changes individuals' explicit traditional (religious) and non-traditional (e.g., paranormal) beliefs as well as cognitive biases that have previously been associated with non-traditional beliefs, e.g., repetition avoidance when producing random numbers in a mental dice task. In a classroom, 91 students saw a magic demonstration after their psychology lecture. Before the demonstration, half of the students were told that the performance was done respectively by a conjuror (magician group) or a psychic (psychic group). The instruction influenced participants' explanations of the anomalous event. Participants in the magician, as compared to the psychic group, were more likely to explain the event through conjuring abilities while the reverse was true for psychic abilities. Moreover, these explanations correlated positively with their prior traditional and non-traditional beliefs. Finally, we observed that the psychic group showed more repetition avoidance than the magician group, and this effect remained the same regardless of whether assessed before or after the magic demonstration. We conclude that pre-existing beliefs and contextual suggestions both influence people's interpretations of anomalous events and associated cognitive biases. Beliefs and associated cognitive biases are likely flexible well into adulthood and change with actual life events.

Spectrum of digoxin-induced ocular toxicity: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Digoxin intoxication results in predominantly digestive, cardiac and neurological symptoms. This case is outstanding in that the intoxication occurred in a nonagenarian and induced severe, extensively documented visual symptoms as well as dysphagia and proprioceptive illusions. Moreover, it went undiagnosed for a whole month despite close medical follow-up, illustrating the difficulty in recognizing drug-induced effects in a polymorbid patient. CASE PRESENTATION: Digoxin 0.25 mg qd for atrial fibrillation was prescribed to a 91-year-old woman with an estimated creatinine clearance of 18 ml/min. Over the following 2-3 weeks she developed nausea, vomiting and dysphagia, snowy and blurry vision, photopsia, dyschromatopsia, aggravated pre-existing formed visual hallucinations and proprioceptive illusions. She saw her family doctor twice and visited the eye clinic once until, 1 month after starting digoxin, she was admitted to the emergency room. Intoxication was confirmed by a serum digoxin level of 5.7 ng/ml (reference range 0.8-2 ng/ml). After stopping digoxin, general symptoms resolved in a few days, but visual complaints persisted. Examination by the ophthalmologist revealed decreased visual acuity in both eyes, 4/10 in the right eye (OD) and 5/10 in the left eye (OS), decreased color vision as demonstrated by a score of 1/13 in both eyes (OU) on Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates, OS cataract, and dry age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Computerized static perimetry showed non-specific diffuse alterations suggestive of either bilateral retinopathy or optic neuropathy. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) disclosed moderate diffuse rod and cone dysfunction and multifocal ERG revealed central loss of function OU. Visual symptoms progressively improved over the next 2 months, but multifocal ERG did not. The patient was finally discharged home after a 5 week hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This case is a reminder of a complication of digoxin treatment to be considered by any treating physician. If digoxin is prescribed in a vulnerable patient, close monitoring is mandatory. In general, when facing a new health problem in a polymorbid patient, it is crucial to elicit a complete history, with all recent drug changes and detailed complaints, and to include a drug adverse reaction in the differential diagnosis.