Proviral integration site for Moloney murine leukemia virus 1, but not phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase, is essential in the antiapoptotic signaling cascade initiated by IL-5 in eosinophils

BACKGROUND: Eosinophil differentiation, activation, and survival are largely regulated by IL-5. IL-5-mediated transmembrane signal transduction involves both Lyn-mitogen-activated protein kinases and Janus kinase 2-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathways. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether additional signaling molecules/pathways are critically involved in IL-5-mediated eosinophil survival. METHODS: Eosinophil survival and apoptosis were measured in the presence and absence of IL-5 and defined pharmacologic inhibitors in vitro. The specific role of the serine/threonine kinase proviral integration site for Moloney murine leukemia virus (Pim) 1 was tested by using HIV-transactivator of transcription fusion proteins containing wild-type Pim-1 or a dominant-negative form of Pim-1. The expression of Pim-1 in eosinophils was analyzed by means of immunoblotting and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Although pharmacologic inhibition of phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) by LY294002, wortmannin, or the selective PI3K p110delta isoform inhibitor IC87114 was successful in each case, only LY294002 blocked increased IL-5-mediated eosinophil survival. This suggested that LY294002 inhibited another kinase that is critically involved in this process in addition to PI3K. Indeed, Pim-1 was rapidly and strongly expressed in eosinophils after IL-5 stimulation in vitro and readily detected in eosinophils under inflammatory conditions in vivo. Moreover, by using specific protein transfer, we identified Pim-1 as a critical element in IL-5-mediated antiapoptotic signaling in eosinophils. CONCLUSIONS: Pim-1, but not PI3K, plays a major role in IL-5-mediated antiapoptotic signaling in eosinophils.

Hepatitis E Virus seroprevalence and chronic infections in patients with HIV, Switzerland

We screened 735 HIV-infected patients in Switzerland with unexplained alanine aminotransferase elevation for hepatitis E virus (HEV) immunoglobulin G. Although HEV seroprevalence in this population is low (2.6%), HEV RNA can persist in patients with low CD4 cell counts. Findings suggest chronic HEV infection should be considered as a cause of persistent alanine aminotransferase elevation.

Orosomucoid (alpha1-acid glycoprotein) plasma concentration and genetic variants: effects on human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor clearance and cellular accumulation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Protease inhibitors are highly bound to orosomucoid (ORM) (alpha1-acid glycoprotein), an acute-phase plasma protein encoded by 2 polymorphic genes, which may modulate their disposition. Our objective was to determine the influence of ORM concentration and phenotype on indinavir, lopinavir, and nelfinavir apparent clearance (CL(app)) and cellular accumulation. Efavirenz, mainly bound to albumin, was included as a control drug. METHODS: Plasma and cells samples were collected from 434 human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Total plasma and cellular drug concentrations and ORM concentrations and phenotypes were determined. RESULTS: Indinavir CL(app) was strongly influenced by ORM concentration (n = 36) (r2 = 0.47 [P = .00004]), particularly in the presence of ritonavir (r2 = 0.54 [P = .004]). Lopinavir CL(app) was weakly influenced by ORM concentration (n = 81) (r2 = 0.18 [P = .0001]). For both drugs, the ORM1 S variant concentration mainly explained this influence (r2 = 0.55 [P = .00004] and r2 = 0.23 [P = .0002], respectively). Indinavir CL(app) was significantly higher in F1F1 individuals than in F1S and SS patients (41.3, 23.4, and 10.3 L/h [P = .0004] without ritonavir and 21.1, 13.2, and 10.1 L/h [P = .05] with ritonavir, respectively). Lopinavir cellular exposure was not influenced by ORM abundance and phenotype. Finally, ORM concentration or phenotype did not influence nelfinavir (n = 153) or efavirenz (n = 198) pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: ORM concentration and phenotype modulate indinavir pharmacokinetics and, to a lesser extent, lopinavir pharmacokinetics but without influencing their cellular exposure. This confounding influence of ORM should be taken into account for appropriate interpretation of therapeutic drug monitoring results. Further studies are needed to investigate whether the measure of unbound drug plasma concentration gives more meaningful information than total drug concentration for indinavir and lopinavir.