Directed integration of new insulated lentiviral vectors to heterochromatin towards safer gene transfer to stem cells

The need for better gene transfer systems towards improved risk=benefit balance for patients remains a major challenge in the clinical translation of gene therapy (GT). We have investigated the improvement of integrating vectors safety in combining (i) new short synthetic genetic insulator elements (GIE) and (ii) directing genetic integration to heterochromatin. We have designed SIN-insulated retrovectors with two candidate GIEs and could identify a specific combination of insulator 2 repeats which translates into best functional activity, high titers and boundary effect in both gammaretro (p20) and lentivectors (DCaro4) (see Duros et al, abstract ibid). Since GIEs are believed to shield the transgenic cassette from inhibitory effects and silencing, DCaro4 has been further tested with chimeric HIV-1 derived integrases which comprise C-ter chromodomains targeting heterochromatin through either histone H3 (ML6chimera) or methylatedCpGislands (ML10). With DCaro4 only and both chimeras, a homogeneous expression is evidenced in over 20% of the cells which is sustained over time. With control lentivectors, less than 2% of cells express GFP as compared to background using a control double-mutant in both catalytic and ledgf binding-sites; in addition, a two-times increase of expression can be induced with histone deacetylase inhibitors. Our approach could significantly reduce integration into open chromatin sensitive sites in stem cells at the time of transduction, a feature which might significantly decrease subsequent genotoxicity, according to X-SCIDs patients data.Work performed with the support of EC-DG research within the FP6-Network of Excellence, CLINIGENE: LSHB-CT-2006-018933

Structure-function relationships of the alpha1b-adrenergic receptor.

The alpha1b-adrenergic receptor (AR) is a member of the large superfamily of seven transmembrane domain (TMD) G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR). Combining site-directed mutagenesis of the alpha1b-AR with computational simulations of receptor dynamics, we have explored the conformational changes underlying the process of receptor activation, i.e. the transition between the inactive and active states. Our findings suggest that the structural constraint stabilizing the alpha1b-AR in the inactive form is a network of H-bonding interactions amongst conserved residues forming a polar pocket and R143 of the DRY sequence at the end of TMDIII. We have recently reported that point mutations of D142, of the DRY sequence and of A293 in the distal portion of the third intracellular loop resulted in ligand-independent (constitutive) activation of the alpha1b-AR. These constitutively activating mutations could induce perturbations resulting in the shift of R143 out of the polar pocket. The main role of R143 may be to mediate receptor activation by triggering the exposure of several basic amino acids of the intracellular loops towards the G protein. Our investigation has been extended also to the biochemical events involved in the desensitization process of alpha1b-AR. Our results indicate that immediately following agonist-induced activation, the alpha1b-AR can undergo rapid agonist-induced phosphorylation and desensitization. Different members of the G protein coupled receptor kinase family can play a role in agonist-induced regulation of the alpha1b-AR. In addition, constitutively active alpha1b-AR mutants display different phosphorylation and internalization features. The future goal is to further elucidate the molecular mechanism underlying the complex equilibrium between activation and inactivation of the alpha1b-AR and its regulation by pharmacological substances. These findings can help to elucidate the mechanism of action of various agents displaying properties of agonists or inverse agonists at the adrenergic system.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.