The role of myeloid receptors on murine plasmacytoid dendritic cells in induction of type I interferon

This study tested the hypothesis that a set of predominantly myeloid restricted receptors (F4/80, CD36, Dectin-1, CD200 receptor and mannan binding lectins) and the broadly expressed CD200 played a role in a key function of plasmacytoid DC (pDC), virally induced type I interferon (IFN) production. The Dectin-1 ligands zymosan, glucan phosphate and the anti-Dectin-1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) 2A11 had no effect on influenza virus induced IFNα/β production by murine splenic pDC. However, mannan, a broad blocking reagent against mannose specific receptors, inhibited IFNα/β production by pDC in response to inactivated influenza virus. Moreover, viral glycoproteins (influenza virus haemagglutinin and HIV-1 gp120) stimulated IFNα/β production by splenocytes in a mannan-inhibitable manner, implicating the function of a lectin in glycoprotein induced IFN production. Lastly, the effect of CD200 on IFN induction was investigated. CD200 knock-out macrophages produced more IFNα than wild-type macrophages in response to polyI:C, a MyD88-independent stimulus, consistent with CD200's known inhibitory effect on myeloid cells. In contrast, blocking CD200 with an anti-CD200 mAb resulted in reduced IFNα production by pDC-containing splenocytes in response to CpG and influenza virus (MyD88-dependent stimuli). This suggests there could be a differential effect of CD200 on MyD88 dependent and independent IFN induction pathways in pDC and macrophages. This study supports the hypothesis that a mannan-inhibitable lectin and CD200 are involved in virally induced type I IFN induction.

Parents' experiences of their children's presence in discussions with physicians about leukemia

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine parents' views regarding their preadolescent child's presence during discussions about serious illnesses. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews with parents of children receiving treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia were conducted. Parents were sampled from 6 UK treatment centers. Analysis was informed by the constant comparative method and content analysis. RESULTS: We report on interviews with 53 parents (33 mothers, 20 fathers). Parents acknowledged the benefits of communicating openly with children, but few thought that their child's presence in discussions was straightforwardly desirable. They described how their child's presence restricted their own communication with physicians, made concentrating difficult, and interfered with their efforts to care for their child emotionally. Children's presence was particularly difficult when significant issues were being discussed, including prognoses, adverse results, and certain medical procedures. Parents felt that such discussions posed a potential threat to their child, particularly when they had not first had an opportunity to discuss information with the physician separately from the child. In contrast, separate meetings enabled parents to absorb information and to convey it to their child at an appropriate time and in a reassuring way. Some parents experienced difficulties in accessing separate meetings with physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties parents described could potentially be addressed by extending, beyond the diagnosis period, the practice of sequencing significant information so that it is communicated to parents in separate meetings before being communicated to the child and by periodically exploring with parents what information would be in each child's interests.

Faith and protection: the construction of hope by parents of children with leukemia and their oncologists

Background. Oncologists are criticized for fostering unrealistic hope in patients and families, but criticisms reflect a perspective that is oversimplified and “expert” guidance that is ambiguous or impractical. Our aim was to understand how pediatric oncologists manage parents' hope in practice and to evaluate how they address parents' needs. Methods. Participants were 53 parents and 12 oncologists whom they consulted across six U.K. centers. We audio recorded consultations approximately 1–2, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis. Parents were interviewed after each consultation to elicit their perspectives on the consultation and clinical relationship. Transcripts of consultations and interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Results. Parents needed hope in order to function effectively in the face of despair, and all wanted the oncologists to help them be hopeful. Most parents focused hope on the short term. They therefore needed oncologists to be authoritative in taking responsibility for the child's long-term survival while cushioning parents from information about longer-term uncertainties and being positive in providing information about short-term progress. A few parents who could not fully trust their oncologist were unable to hope. Conclusion. Oncologists' pivotal role in sustaining hope was one that parents gave them. Most parents' “faith” in the oncologist allowed them to set aside, rather than deny, their fears about survival while investing their hopes in short-term milestones. Oncologists' behavior generally matched parents' needs, contradicting common criticisms of oncologists. Nevertheless, oncologists need to identify and address the difficulty that some parents have in fully trusting the oncologist and, consequently, being hopeful.